Manningham News

Crime Continues to Pay at Manningham Council - part 1

Blogger — Fri, 16 Nov 2018 00:18:10 GMT

Manningham Council broke their own laws. And now, they are breaking their own procedures -- procedures that they insist we follow.

Also Manningham Council is trying to sweep the consequences of their actions and all responsibility for their lawless acts under the carpet.

In this article I will try to explain the background of what happened and then summarize the main issues and also the faults in Manningham council's attempts to defend their own lawbreaking.

So What happened?

Back in 1991 the council paid a consulting company, Context Pty Ltd, to identify buildings in Manningham that had heritage significance. The report they produced identified the council offices as being of heritage significance. They claimed the council offices were a good example of a Miesian Pavilion. (We will get onto that shortly). As a result the council placed a heritage overlay on the council offices in an effort to protect the heritage value of the building. (see page 222, minutes 28 Aug 2018, point 2.25.)

The problem is that in 1999 the council radically renovated the council offices and removed or covered up much of what was seen in 1991 as having heritage significance.

What is embarrassing is that the council, in 1999, never recalled that they had placed a heritage overlay on the offices they were about to radically alter. They just went ahead and did what they wanted without consulting the heritage overlays.

Later on, someone pointed out to the council that there was a heritage overlay on the council offices and the council should not have approved the project without first considering this overlay.

This is something that the council demands we residents must never do. If a resident were to alter a building that had a heritage overlay to the point where all heritage significance had been removed or covered up, the council would have them before VCAT and insist that heavy punitive fines be paid.

What is worse, we now learn that this is not the only time Manningham Council has done this. They have done the exact same thing more than once.

The council asked John Patrick Pty Ltd to identify trees of significance in the city in 2006. Two trees near the council offices were identified as being of heritage significance. Around 2010 the council had these two trees removed to build the MC². Again, the council never checked or even recalled that they placed a heritage overlay on these two trees to protect them.

So now the council now finds itself in a difficult place. They ignored, or forgot about, their own heritage overlays and just went ahead did what they wanted. And not just once, but twice.

So what is Manningham Council going to do?

How would the council behave if the roles were reversed?

Manningham Council places a lot of importance on their heritage and environmental overlays. They see it as important to protect those parts of Manningham that have heritage or environmental significance.

If you or I were to change a building or remove trees that had a heritage or environmental overlay, without even consulting the council or considering the overlay, Manningham council would come down on us very hard.

And if we were to ruin the heritage significance of a building, that is remove nearly every aspect of it that was seen as having heritage significance and to never even consider getting the approval of council, they would come down on us even harder.

If we were to do the exact same thing that the council did, Manningham council would have us before VCAT quickly. Manningham Council would lecture us before VCAT about how important and necessary the overlays are and insist we pay a large punitive fine.

And this is not just speculation. All we need to do is look at how Manningham council has treated people in the past who have done exactly what the council did.

I have written an article on this website about a migrant family who bought a property at Warrandyte that had an environmental overlay on it. Without getting council approval (and probably not even knowing they had to get council approval) they brought in some soil, dug a ditch and planted some trees.

Please read that article on this website. It is called "Out of Control Environmentalism" (21/11/2013). Please see how fanatical and punitive Manningham Council was to this family.

Please look at the long list of 'orders' VCAT placed upon the offenders. I will list just some of these 'orders' here:

the soil had to be returned to the ditch they dug in the exact same sequence and layers in which it was removed. So the earth returned needed to match the undisturbed soil around it. And this was to be supervised to ensure they did exactly as required.
Various environmental impact statements and management plans had to be prepared at the family's expense.
They had to enter into an agreement with the council to ensure they adhered to their environmental management plans.
Should they sell the property, the environmental management plans were to be carried on by the new owners. This would have been an issue for any potential buyers.

And this is only a few of the orders. Please see the article. There are page after page of these 'Orders'. Note how nearly all restoration work was to be supervised by an independent consultant paid for by the owners.

When you consider how the council treated this family because they overlooked an environmental overlay, I think you will agree that the council was quite punitive, fanatical and even somewhat vindictive in their response.

And now Manningham Council have done the exact same thing as this family – exactly.

And they didn't do it just once, they did it twice.

First the council ignored a heritage overlay they had on the council offices. Then the council ignored a herigate overlay they had on two trees they removed.

What are they going to do?

The problem of procedure.

Manningham Council appears not to want to admit any fault in either of these matters. They are currently doing everything they can to escape all responsibility and blame.

To address their problem, Manningham Council brought in heritage consultants Lovell Chen. They have asked them to review the heritage overlay on the council offices. And they, no doubt, expected these consultants to come back with a report saying there was never any justification to place the heritage overlay on the council offices.

And, off course, the consultants did not disappoint them. The council got exactly what they wanted.

The consultants argue that the council offices, as they stood in 1991, never really justified having a heritage overlay placed on it and so never justified protecting for heritage reasons.

But there is a big problem with this.

Note that the consultants are brought in AFTER THE EVENT to justify what the council had already done.

The Warrandyte Heritage Society is quite right in saying: "The Heritage Council process has not been followed." (page 167, minutes 24 April 2018).

They are quite right.

Procedures established by the council, which they expect everyone else to follow, require that any heritage issues be addressed BEFORE work commences.

In fact, Manningham Council insists we follow this procedure if we own a building with a heritage overlay.

Think for a moment about how the council would respond if we first changed a heritage building and removed almost ALL features of heritage significance AND ONLY THEN brought in a heritage consultant to argue that we did not ruin anything of real worth and that the building should never have had a heritage overlay in the first place. How do you think the council would respond?

Again, that is not hard to answer. In short, the council would be enraged! They simply would not accept the arguments of any 'experts' we were to employ AFTER THE EVENT to justify our actions and say that the council was wrong in placing the overlay on your property in the first place. I am sure that, to Manningham Council, the fact that we brought in heritage consultants -- after the event -- to justify our actions would be proof of our guilt!

Soon we would be taken before VCAT and you would be heavily fined as an example to all of what happens to such people in Manningham -- as has happened to Manninghham residents in the past.

But note the big difference now.

When Manningham Council breaks their own laws, there appears an entirely different set of rules and procedures in place and an entirely different consideration of justifications post-event.

Manningham Council sets a very bad example.

The Warrandyte Heritage society also says that the council's action "Sends wrong message to the owners of heritage listed properties." (page 171 minutes 24 April 2018 point 3.9).

And it most certainly does!

Manningham Council makes a great deal about their role as protectors of the environment and heritage assets in the City of Manningham.

They tell us this is a very important job. The work is hard and important. And they have good reason to enforce the many heritage and environmental overlays they have put in place.

This is the council 'narrative' they tell us.

But inside Manningham Council it appears an entirely different assessment exists. It appears that what they say to us and what they think amongst themselves are two very different things.

When they wanted to make changes to the council offices they did not even bother checking for overlays. And when they wanted to build the MC2 they again did not even bother to check for overlays. In both cases they just went ahead and did what they wanted. Environmental and heritage overlays did not even appear in their considerations and do not appear to be of great importance to them.

If you believe the council 'narrative' about how important the overlays are, you would think the council would have internal procedures to follow during the approval of any building permit. You would think that if any councilor, resident or builder approaches Manningham Council seeking approval for their building plans, the council would have, as part of the process, a check made for heritage and environmental overlays in the area.

However, when it comes to something the council wants to do, suddenly all that goes out the window. To the council, the overlays simply are not important or necessary enough to check. And no-one in the council even thought it necessary to check.

So just really how important are these heritage and environmental overlays?

It appears when it comes to their own projects, the council can easily forget everything about the overlays. And not just once, but twice! -- (I suggest that we are seeing a pattern here).

I find it odd, that Manningham Council has one narrative they so passionately tell us, however it seems an entirely different narrative appears to be held within the council.

And I think it is good to see the council in action like this. I have long held the view that many of our heritage overlays are rediculous and have said as much. And there is good reason to think this is the case.

I wrote an article on this website called "Heritage Overlays" written back in October 2013. And there you will see that Manningham Council puts heritage overlays on the most rediculous things.

For example:

HO204 is an old house overgrown with trees and weeds that no one is looking after and is just a fire and safety problem.

HO10 is a broken down old barbed wire fence that has fallen down and no one is clearing the grass near it. It is just an accident waiting to happen. Please see the photographs I took of it.

HO123 is an overlay that protects a treated pine fence. That's right – a treated pine fence. (Possibly the treated pine suppliers out in Bayswater North lobbied the council to have this overlay put in place!). To everyone else it is a neglected ruin and another accident waiting to happen.

The council also puts heritage overlays on the INSIDE of houses.

The Council also put overlays on display homes first built in an area. The only claim to fame these homes have is, as far as I can tell, the fact these were the first homes in an area. Other than that they have little, if any, significance.

I could go on and on about the nonsense the council thrusts upon ordinary good people.

By looking at these Heritage Overlays and the run down condition many of them are in, it is easy to believe that the council is not really protecting anything of real value but are just creating administrative and management work for themselves.

Am I being unfair to them?

Well, the question is simply this. Why does the council make such a song and dance about the importance of the heritage and environmental overlays to us but then repeatedly ignore them when they want to do something?

So what was special about the old Council Offices as they stood in 1991?

Getting back to the council offices.

The Heritage Study in 1991 said that the council offices then were "Of state significance as the most complex and arguably the finest expression of a Miesian Pavillion in the state." (Minutes 24 April 2018, page 213 point 3.0.)

So what is a Miesian Pavilion?

A Miesian Pavillion is the work of Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, a german architect who was one of the most influential in the twentieth century (I am quoting from the Lovell Chen report to the council.)

A Miesian pavilion is a very simple, modern building. Essentially a rectangular box with thin supporting columns, glass and steel walls and a roof that appears to float above the glass exterior. Good examples can be quite elegant and pleasing. There are examples of them in the report of Lovell Chen (page 215, 223ff, Minutes 24 April 2018). It appears that simplicity and a purity of design distinguish the better examples of this architectural style.

So how did the original council offices first built in 1956 become a Miesian pavilion?

It is important to know a brief history of the Manningham Council offices.

The offices were built in 1956. Then, starting in 1964, these offices went through a series of renovations and additions which were all influenced by the design style of Mies van der Rohe.

For instance:

Renovations to the council chambers that started in 1964 appear to have been "influenced by the designs of Mies van der Rohe". (Minutes 24 April 2018, page 220, point 5.0).

Also we are told that "the 1970s and 1980s additions draw on some of the characteristics of earlier Miesian building in Victoria through it's use of glass and applied steel universal columns and massing." (minutes 28 August 2018, page 243.)

So the original council offices underwent a series of renovations and additions that drew on the design ideas of one man, Mies van der Rohe.

Then in 1991, Manningham Council commissioned a Heritage Study to identify buildings of heritage significance in Manningham. This study identified the council offices as follows:

"Of state significance as the most complex and arguably the finest expression of a Miesian Pavillion in the state." (page 213 point 3.0 minutes 24 April 2018.)

As a result of this study, a heritage overlay was placed on the council offices.

However, in 1999 the council commissioned further additions to the council offices that essentially removed, overbuilt or destroyed nearly all the heritage qualities identified in 1991.

Why bring in heritage consultant Lovell Chen?

Manningham Council brought in these consultants to do a 'first principles' review of the heritage significance of the council offices, as they stood in 1991.

As I said above, the council expected these consultants to report that there was never any real historical significance of the council offices and so get them off the hook for what they had done.

Concerning the council offices, Lovell Chen make the following arguments:

They found errors in the report of the 1991 Heritage Study.
They question whether the council offices was ever a good example of a Miesian pavilion.
They argue that the council offices were not a building of STATE significance.
They suggest that the architects who did build it, did not have a track record of building significant Miesian pavilions in Victoria.

Let's look at these arguments one at a time.

But before we start, we need to look carefully at what the 1991 Heritage Study said. They concluded this about the council offices:

"History.

A Miesian pavilion cantilevers suspended between two grey/green masonry, semi-cylindrical, stair blocks. A wing steps away at ground level, as the site slopes at left. It is clad wityh black finished steel plate clad, with exposed Universal Section mullions, with large panel dark glass windows.

The left-hand wing is Municpal Chambers. They have a 45 degree clear glass entrance canopy. The level below this (in effect, the basement) using the sloping site, fronts a courtyard. The west elevations have elaborate metal sun louvres on a tubular steel frame. There is an Anthony Prior 1986 scultpure 'I am a man like you'.

Designed by Gerd [sic.] & Renate Block architects in c. 1970. Gerd Block was shortly after appointed Professor of Architecture at Christchurch University, New Zealand.

This building can be compared to Crown Hall MIT & National Gallery Berlin by Mies van der Rohe; South Yarra Public Library, Yunken Freeman; Siemans, Church Street Richmont and Germany Embassy Canberra by Gerd & Renate Block.

Statement of Significance.

Of State significance as the most complex and arguably the finest expression of a Miesian pavilion in the state." (See minutes 28 August 2018, page 241, 242.)

Note how the 1991 Heritage Study makes an argument in three parts. First it uses a description of the building to put it forward the idea that the council offices in 1991 were a good example of a Miesian pavilion. Then it uses the fact that one of the architects was promoted to a prestigious teaching position to suggest that he was highly qualified and noted for his work. Finally it compares the council offices to other notable Miesian pavilion buildings suggesting it is of significance and worthy of protection.

Now, let's examine Lovell Chen's arguments one by one.

The Errors in the 1991 Heritage Study.

The 1991 Heritage Study by Context Pty Ltd concluded that the design architects for the first renovation in 1964 was Gerd & Renate Block. This turns out to be incorrect. The actual architects were Lines MacFarlane & Marshall who not only did the renovations in 1964 but all renovations up to and including those in 1991.

First we must say this was a very easy error to make. The 1991 Heritage Study consulted a book that was incorrect and gave them incorrect information.

The State Government also conducted a study in 2010 to identify buildings of state significance. This study in 2010 (page 245 minutes 28 August 2018) also incorrectly identified the architects as being Gerd & Renate Block.

So we can see it was an easy mistake to make.

We should also note that for Lovell Chen to find who the actual architects were, they needed to pour through council minutes and other documents to find sometimes somewhat obscure references to the architects. (See page 216 4.2.1, page 226 7.4, 24 April 2018)

Lovell Chen's incorrect focus on Architectural Significance.

Having found the error, Lovell Chen then reason as follows:

"... evidence was that the original assessment of significance and justification for protection under the Heritage Overlay was based on incorrect information and claims for architectural significance" (Minutes 28 August 2018, page 242)

For Lovell Chen to be able to reason like this, they need to place a lot of importance on the architects and in particular upon Gerd & Renate Block. Gerd & Renate Block were noted for their Miesian pavilion designs in Victoria and had a history of such buildings. Lines MacFarlane and Marshall were not.

To Lovell Chen, the architects who designed a building, play an important part when assessing the building for heritage significance. This line of thought is prominent in Lovell Chen's reasoning. They are of the view that the track record and background of the architectural firm is an important consideration when assigning heritage significance to a building. And they could be right.

However, as you read the council minutes, you may notice that what Lovell Chen is actually looking at "architectural" significance and not "heritage" significance. They seem to believe that if a building has architectural significance then it should also have heritage significance. And they may be right here also. However the issue at hand is heritage significance not architectural significance. Heritage significance has more to do with the history of a building and it's role in the history of Manningham. This is the reason for most of the heritage overlays put in place by the council. Many of the buildings protected by council heritage overlays have little or no architectural significance. For example, Manningham council placed a Heritage Overlay over a fence post which had been hewn by axe from bush timber. I would think it hard to argue that this fence post has architectural significance or merit.

Lovell Chen repeatedly focusses and speaks of Architectural Significance.

For example. See the assessment of Miesian pavilion buildings in Victoria – which are later used to argue against the architectural significance of the 1991 Council Offices. (pages 223 to 229. 24 April 2018) And also see how Lovell Chen assesses the council offices in terms of 'architectural merit' (page 229 8.0 24 April 2018).

See also page 214, 24 April 2018 4.1 where Lovell Chen assess architectural significance when comparing Mieisan pavilion buildings in Victoria. And also see page 229 8.0 24 April 2018 where Lovell Chen assesses architectural 'merit'.

Let us continue down this line of thought of Lovell Chen.

For Lovell Chen, Gerd & Renate Block were significant proponents in Victoria of the design style of Mies van der Rohe. "The links to the Blocks is not correct hence the association to architects who practised in the Miesian tradition does not support heritage protection" (page 246 28 August 2018)

Lines MacFarlane & Marshall did not practice in this tradition and Lovell Chen claim their particular design style reflects what they refer to as 'brutalism'. (Page 242, 243 Minutes 28 August 2018).

I regard this line of reasoning is incorrect for a number of reasons.

Lovell Chen are focusing on the wrong things.

The 1991 Heritage Study did not come to their conclusion because of the architects. Look at their reasoning in their conclusion quoted above. The first and primary reason for seeing the council offices as being of historical significance was the finished form of the building itself. Note how they first describe the building and on the basis of their description, see it as being of heritage significance.

It is true that a second reason they give is the architects Gerd & Renate Block. But this is a secondary argument where they suggest the architects were significant because they were recognised by an overseas academic institution. Nowhere, that I can find, does the 1991 study rely on the architects being recognised proponents of the Miesian pavilion style of building.

It was the finished form of the building itself that was their main reason for assigning heritage significance. So the fact that the architects were incorrectly identified, does not really take away from their argument of significance.

Lovell Chen avoids addressing the actual finished form of the Council Offices as it stood in 1991.

So what was the finished form of the council offices in 1991? What did it look like that convinced the Heritage Study in 1991?

The Lovell Chen report only gives us their opinion of the architectural value of the council offices as they stood in 1991. We are not given any pictures in their report demonstrating the strengths of why the 1991 council offices were considered a good example of a Miesian pavilion. There are pictures of the council offices as they stood at other points in time. But we have no pictures showing it's strengths in 1991.

So we are left in a position where we are unable to see how well the 1991 offices represented a consistent and well formed Miesian pavilion building.

To be fair, balanced, accurate and complete in their assessment, Lovell Chen should have provided such photographs. Also Lovell Chen should have made an argument based on such perspectives and view points of the 1991 council that demonstrated it's strengths as a Miesian pavilion building. However, none of this was done.

What we have from Lovell Chen is their own opinions on the architectural value of the 1991 council offices. But we are unable to see the building for ourselves, at it's strengths, to form our own opinion on the matter.

In my view, that is not right.

Crime Continues to Pay at Manningham Council - part 2

Blogger — Tue, 13 Nov 2018 23:13:23 GMT

Do Architects really work the way Lovell Chen suggests?

We need to question the validity of placing so much importance on the track record of the two architectural firms.

That approach gives the impression that architectural firms excel at one style of architecture and not at others. Also it gives the impression that architects who have not designed note worthy buildings of a certain style will not do so at some point in the future.

I find it hard to accept this line of argumentation.

I am of the view that architects work from a 'brief' given them by their client. They are asked to design a building with certain qualities. They have scope to include design elements that they want, but overall they need to deliver a design that the client wants and accepts. (Please see council minutes page 226 7.3 of 24 April 2018 where a more practical approach to meeting client needs is described along the lines I have describe here.)

The architects Lines MacFarlane and Marshall would have worked from such a brief and also would have included design elements of their own. They chose to include many design elements from the work of Mies van der Rohe.

Lovell Chen recognise this.

Lovell Chen even says that the 1964 and later renovations by Lines MacFarlane and Marshall drew upon the design ideas of Mies van der Rohe. "It appears that the 1964 addition was influenced by the designs of Mies van der Rohe" (page 220, minutes 24 April 2018). Lovell Chen (and the council) go on to say that the renovations in 1977 and 1988 "draw on some of the characteristics of earlier Miesian styled buildings in Victoria" (Minutes 243 28 August 2018)

However Lovell Chen is critical of the work and says "But it lacks the sophistication and purity of form typical of the style" (Minutes page 243, 28 August 2018).

However, that is a matter of opinion given with little supporting evidence.

Lovell Chen says the council offices post 1999 renovations did not present as a well resolved whole. However the building as it stood in 1991 may well have.

Lovell Chen says "the building does not present as a well-resolved whole" (page 242 28 August 2018). Here and in other places which we will study below, Lovell Chen are actually talking about the council offices as they stood after the 1999 renovations which removed or cover up much of the Miesian pavilion design attributes.

This also is a matter of opinion. And when you think about it, this opinion and criticism is highly unlikely to be true.

Consider this for a moment. The council offices had been renovated in 1964, 1977 and 1988 by the same architectural firm. Large sections of the council offices were altered each time. Surely the brief to the architects each time, especially in 1977 and 1988, was that the building was to present as a "well resolved whole" otherwise the council offices would appear somewhat amateurish, with additions and alterations appearing as being 'added on' and possibly even out of place'.

Surely the brief to the architects was to produce a renovated building that appeared to be a consistent design and a well resolved whole by applying the same design principles. Otherwise the council offices may have looked odd, like some poorly designed addition to a suburban home.

No doubt this 'well resolved whole' is what the heritage study saw in 1991. And it was this well resolved whole that they saw as a Miesian pavilion building.

It is not unreasonable to think that the building as it stood in 1991 was a cohesive and consistent Miesian pavilion building.

Lovell Chen provide their opinion, but when you think about it, it does not make sense.

Now we delve into the murky world of misleading statements.

I would like you to read the following quote from the Lovell Chen report and ask yourself, "Just which council offices are being addressed here. Is it the offices as they stood in 1991 after the 1977 and 1988 renovations or the offices as they stood after the 1999 renovations by Perrot Lyon Matheson." (which overbuilt much of the Miesian pavilion design features.)

"The subject building is not a key work within the AK Lines MacFarlane & Marshall's oeuvre and it does not provide substantial insights into a valued house style. As noted above, it's public face derives from works undertaken in the 1990's by architects Perrot Lyon Matheson. It provides no useful insights into the work of Mies van der Rohe or his influence on local architectural practice. It is an amalgam of architectural interventions. While these are broadly consistent stylistically, the buildng does not present a well resolved or coherent whole". (page 229 8.2 24 April 2018).

So which building where they talking about?

(nb. Oeuvre is just a french word for 'body of work'.)

As I read it, they appear to be talking about the building as it stood after the renovations of 1999. Not as it stood in 1991.

At best we can say they are not clear about which version of the council offices they are talking about. But they appear, to me, to be referring to the offices as they stood AFTER 1999.

If I am right, then they are talking about the council offices after the Miesian design elements as noted in the 1991 Heritage Study were covered up, destroyed or removed.

What is interesting is that the council takes this quote and also would like you to think it applies to the 1991 building.

Let me give you some examples and see if you can spot their intention.

"In a detailed assessment of the municipal offices, heritage consultants Lovell Chen noted that, among other things, 'In terms of it's form, neither the original building as it existed in 1964 nor the building assess in 2006 could reasonably be described as a Miesian pavilion...' The assessment goes on to state that 'On the basis of the above, it is evident that the building does not meet the threshold of State significance". (page 222 2.26 28 August 2018).

Again. What building are they talking about? At best they are being vague.

FIrst, they talk about the original building in 1964. There is a picture of this building on page 218 minutes, 24 April 2018. And I agree. It looks nothing like a Miesian pavilion and more like a massive suburban house. Then they talk about the building in 2006 -- that is after the council had ruined all aspects of it being a Miesian pavilion in 1999. And I agree, it is not a Miesian pavilion.

I happen to agree with what they say just above. The building as it stood in 1964 and as it stood after 1999 was not a Miesian pavilion of note. However, it was the building in 1991 that was assessed by the Heritage Study as being a Miesian pavilion that is in question.

So here, as elsewhere, there appears to be a contrived ambiguity in the wording of what is said.

I think we are being misled by this ambiguity and use of words. The Lovell Chen report and Council minutes just don't spell out clearly exactly which version of the building they are referring to. It is most likely, in my view, the building AFTER the 1999 renovations when the council ruined all Miesian pavilion qualities of their offices.

Their careful wording seems, to me at least, to suggest they agree that the 1991 building was a good example of a Miesian pavilion but do not want to say that and also do not want to say it was not just in case someone at a future date points out their error. By leaving the wording vague they can always say it was technically correct and that people just misunderstood it and assumed the wrong thing.

The council extensively quotes these ambiguous passes of the Lovell Chen report.

"... it's public face derives from works undertaken in the 1990's by architects Perrot Lyon Matheson. It provides no useful insights into the work of Mies van der Rohe or his influence on local architectural practice. It is an amalgam of architectural interventions. While these are broadly consistent stylistically, the building does not present a well resolved or coherent whole". (page 222 2.27 28 August 2018).

The council uses this quote as justification for removing the Heritage Overlay from the council offices.

But again, the version of the building they are talking about is the one AFTER the council ruined it.

And see Lovell Chen's argument for removing the heritage overlay where they talk about the 'resulting' building, which I assume to be he council offices after the 1999 renovations and not as the offices stood in 1991. (Page 229 8.1 24 April 2018). Again they do not address or assess the 1991 building but instead assess the current building which has had nearly all Miesian design attributes covered or removed.

It appears that the council is saying, and the Lovell Chen report is also saying, that the Miesian pavilion qualities of the 1991 council offices have been so ruined by the 1999 renovation work, that it no longer justifies a heritage overlay.

However, to say this clearly and openly would be simply outrageous.

And that is another reason for this ambiguity.

Was the 1991 council offices a poor example of a Miesian pavilion as Lovell Chen suggest.

As I have mentioned previously, we are not given the opportunity to assess for ourselves the qualities of the council offices as they stood in 1991 that lent it be seen as a good example of a Miesian pavilion.

The fact that no photographs were provided or examined showing the strengths of the building as seen and described by the 1991 Heritage Study is very disappointing.

Photographs are provided of the council offices at other points in time, but not at the important time in question.

I am sure that the council would have many photographs of the offices as they stood in 1991 when they were assessed by the 1991 Heritage Study.

The Lovell Chen report does however include photographs of some parts of the council offices as they were in 1991 (figure 9, page 221, minutes 24 April 2018, figure 4 page 244, minutes 28 August 2018) These photographs are included because they are used elsewhere as evidence to argue against the architectural significance of the building.

For example. There are photographs showing the north facing facade of the offices with the sun louvres. Lovell Chen then argue that "the incorporation of somewhat awkwardly designed sun louvres into the design ... further undermines it's success as an example of Mies inspired design".

In response to this, we can point out that the Heritage study of 1991 did not see these sun louvres as an issue. And even Lovell Chen themselves point out, that the sun louvres were most likely added for purely practical reasons. (See page 244 28 August 2018). They describe it as 'a straight forward and practical gesture'. Possibly it was a requirement of the client's to provide protection from the sun on that side of the building.

It is a bit rich to single out one requirement of the client as a reason to argue against the merit of a building and then also to ignore nearly all the qualities of the building that led the 1991 Heritage Study to think is a good example of a Miesian pavilion. AND also not provide photographs of the 1991 council offices so people could see for themselves why it was considered to be a good Mieisan pavilion.

This business about it being 'Arguably the finest expression of a Miesian pavilion in the state'

One statement that the Lovell Chen reports takes issue with is this. "... and arguably the finest expression of a Miesian pavilion in the state".

First and most important, this is clearly an opinion.

However, Lovell Chen appears to look upon this as a statement of fact. For example.

"The Panel notes that the 1991 Heritage Study' statement of significance includes strong references to State significance" (page 245 28 August 2018).

"On the basis of the above, it is evident that the building does not meet the threshold of State significance" (page 229 24 April 2018).

In the Lovell Chen report in the minutes of 24 April 2018, pages 223 to 226 are devoted to a survey of Miesian pavilions in Victoria to argue against the above statement. Lovell Chen in these pages seek to demonstrate that the council offices are simply not the finest expression of a Miesian pavilion in Victoria.

The simple fact is that the writers of the 1991 report themselves knew that they were expressing their own opinion and that many would disagree with them.

I think what Lovell Chen is doing here is building a 'straw man' argument just so they can later demolish it. Off course it is easy to challenge the statement. The writers in 1991 knew it would be.

But there is one important question to consider here.

Why would any one express an opinion that many would know to be easily shown to be weak or possibly even false?

I think we need to go back to 1991 to find out why.

If you spend time reading council documents, you realize that consultants ALWAYS tell the council exactly what they want to hear. The council informs consultants of not only the brief for the work they want them to do, but they are also able, somehow, to inform them of what it is that they expect to see in their report. And the consultants ALWAYS dutifully provide the council with exactly what they want.

The consultants Lovell Chen are a good example of this.

We the public, off course, are led to think that the consultants report is an 'objective second and independent opinion made by outside experts'. When in fact it really is very far from that. They are experts. But it is not really an independent opinion.

And so back in 1991, the consultants Context Pty. Ltd, who did the 1991 Heritage Study also, no doubt, did the same thing.

One possible reason for all this is that consultants are always on the look out for more easy, well paying government work. And you certainly won't get that work if you start saying things the government does not want to hear.

I put to you that, at the time, the council wanted a listing of all buildings in Manninham that had heritage value. The intention of the council was to place heritage overlays on these buildings. Which we note, they then went ahead and did. Even to the point of being somewhat ridiculous.

As I have mentioned elsewhere, a large number of heritage overlays would produce a body of work that the council would then need to manage and administer.

In my view, the council wanted as many heritage overlays as possible. This is evidenced by the fact that the council was silly enough to place a heritage overlay even on their own council offices.

Very few other councils have done something as silly as that. Most knew that there would come a time when staff numbers grew, when new facilities were required. And they did not want to have to deal with a heritage overlay on something that they knew would be undergoing extensions and renovations on a regular basis.

But it seems that Manningham council did not see this danger and went ahead, in their enthusiasm, to place a heritage overlay on their own council offices.

I think we can now see the reason probably why consultants wanted to 'sell' to the council the heritage value of all the buildings they listed. The greater the heritage significance they could propose, the more the council had to work with to achieve their aims of establishing a large number of heritage overlays.

So we can see that, just like Lovell Chen today in 2018, Context Pty Ltd were doing the councils bidding back in 1991 and delivering to the council exactly what the council wanted to see.

This is why the council offices were given such a glowing recommendation as being of heritage significance back in 1991.

And off course, Lovell Chen would have known all this. They are consultants just like Context Pty Ltd are. They know how it all works. And possibly they had gone through the council archives and would know the objectives of the 1991 Heritage Study, both the stated objectives and the other objectives.

But instead of seeing the work and statements of 1991 for what it was, Lovell Chen took it entirely out of context and used it to support a line of argumentation that the council wanted to see.

The took it out of context in two ways.

First, they took an obvious opinion and assumed it to be a stated fact.

Second, they knew consultants give the council what they expect and provide statements and information the council can use to achieve it's goals. However they decided to ignore this, hoping no one would notice, and make these statements into something they were not.

Lovell Chen however does make some very good points.

One thing that the Lovell Chen makes very clear is that the Miesian design qualities of the council offices, as they stood in 1991, had been changed beyond all recognition by the council in 1999.

In their report they give this as reason to justify the removal of the heritage overlay. For example:

"The complex has undergone significant physical change since it was first assessed in 1991. Accordingly, it is appropriate to undertake a review of significance and the question of whether the Heritage Overlay is warranted.... It is my opinion that :

The building complex is an amalgam of a series of phases of works. While these are broadly consistent stylistically, the building does not present as a well resolved or coherent whole.
In particular the 1999 works have had a transformative effect in terms of representing the complex to Doncaster Road."

On this basis, it is considered that the inclusion of the place in the HO Schedule is not warranted." ( page 244 Minutes 28 August 2018).

Note here we are only talking about the offices as they stand after the 1999 renovations. This is the building as renovated by the council in 1999.

Essentially, they argue that heritage overlay should be removed because the council has changed, covered or ruined all Miesian pavilion qualities of the building to such an extent that it no longer warrants having a Heritage Overlay.

Lovell Chen make a very important point. And it is something the council should be strongly condemned for.

If we were to do the exact same thing and vandalise a building that had a council heritage overlay, just as the council did, we would be dragged before VCAT and heavily fined.

Lets consider other statements in the Lovell Chen report about the council's disregard for their own Heritage Overlay:

"The Council ... Office ... has undergone a series of re-construction activity in 1964, 1977, 1978-81 and the most recent in 1999 which significantly altered the front entry facade of the building. Much of this work (i.e. the 1999 work) has over-build previous building facades and design elements culminating in what Ms Gray now described as a building comples that presents as amalgum of various architectural interventions" (page 242 28 August 2018).

That's right, the council removed any likeness the offices had to a Miesian pavilion and produced something of a dogs breakfast as a result.

"The panel considers the later additions and alterations in 1999 have further over-built the original form resulting in the loss of significant architectural connection with Miesian pavilion design" (page 245 minutes 28 August 2018).

And finally:

"The heritage significance of the Manningham City Council Municpal Offices has been diminished over time as a result of past additions and alterations that have reduced or removed architectural elemernt that could be considered to reflect a miesian pavilion typology. ...The removal of the heritage overlay (HO048) ... is strategically justified and appropriate." (page 246 minutes 28 August 2018).

Note how the statement above implies that the council offices as they stood in 1991 had heritage significance.

This is a valid point. The council basically ruined a Heritage building that was quite a reasonable example of a Miesian pavilion.

This is a damning reproach of Manningham Council. Just imagine if you or I were to ruin a heritage building beyond all recognition.

And to make matters worse, Manningham council cannot bring themselves to admit they have broken their own laws and procedures. Instead they spend more of our money in a cowardly and desperate attempt to extricate themselves from all blame and responsibility.

Lovell Chen say it is 'strategically' justified to remove the overlay. I think this could well mean that removing the overlay will get the council off the hook.

So what about the two trees?

There is one thing that we have not addressed up to this point. And that is the way the council tries to justify the removal of the two trees that had a heritage overlay on them.

The council removed these two trees so they could build the MC² complex. One was an English Oak and the second a Weeping Elm (page 212, 24 April 2018) These trees were identified as being of significance in the Manningham Heritage Garden and Significant Tree Study (John Patrick Pty Ltd 2006). (page 222 28 August 2018).

We also paid our money for that report, which the council then went and ignored so they could do what they wanted.

This is how the council now justifies their actions:

"These have since been removed as part of the development of MC2 in approximately 2010" (Page 222 28 August 2018.)

and also

"... or have since been removed as a result of past authorized development" (page 246 minutes 28 August 2018). I assume the minutes here are referring to the trees.

These arguments are outrageous.

The simple fact is that the building approval process for the MC² was not done properly. They did not check for heritage overlays in the area they were going to develop.

In other words, the building approval process was not done with due care and diligence.

What they are now trying to say is that this 'botched' building approval process justified the removal of the trees.

No it did not and it does not today.

It is like telling someone that two wrongs make a right. They botched the approval process, and they illegally removed the two trees that had a heritage overlay on them, but now everything is all right.

No the removal of the two trees is not justified by a building approval process which did not exercise due care and diligence and which did not follow proper procedures (that is, to check for overlays).

This is simply the council trying to pull the wool over our eyes again to get themselves out of trouble and blame.

Gaming the System - to do what?

Blogger — Tue, 07 Aug 2018 09:54:43 GMT

Wikipedia defines 'Gaming the system' as 'using the rules and procedures meant to protect a system in order, instead, to manipulate the system for a desired outcome'.

I think something like that is going on at Manningham Council.

Please let me explain.

I went through all the council Budget and Annual Report documents I had on hand and compared the budgeted Income figure for a year with the actual income figure for the same year.

The budget, off course, is what the council plans or hopes to do in the coming year. It contains estimates, guesses and projections on what might happen in the coming year.

The Annual Report, on the other hand, looks back on the year and details exactly what did happen.

In the past, Manningham Council has been very good at estimating and projecting what income they would take in in the coming year. For instance, years ago, they were able to estimate the income they would earn in the coming year to within around one or two million dollars of what it actually turned out to be.

But in recent years Manningham council's estimates of what they would earn in the coming financial year have been way off when you compare it to the figures they publish later in the Annual Report for that same year.

And as the years go by, the figures show that Manningham Council are getting worse and worse at estimating their income when they prepare their budget.

Let me give you some numbers. Below are the budgeted incomes from the annual Budget documents as well as the actual income from the Annual Reports for the same year. I have also calculated the dollar difference between the two and the percentage difference. Note that all numbers are in thousands. So 112 would be $112,000. The last annual report the council has provided is for the 2016/2017 financial year. So the figures stop there. The figures start in 2012/2013 simply because I have no earlier Budgets along with the corresponding Annual Reports for the year.

Financial Year	Budgeted Income $,000	Actual Income $,000	Dollar Difference	Percent Difference
2016/2017	$127,783^C	$149,655^H	$21,872,000	17.12%
2015/2016	$124,295^D	$132,309^I	$8,014,000	6.45%
2014/2015	$115,531^E	$120,207^J	$4,676,000	4.05%
2013/2014	$111,921^F	$114,094^K	$2,173,000	1.94%
2012/2013	$110,472^G	$112,750^L	$2,278,000	2.06%

C) Page 16, Budget 2016-2017.

D) Page 67, Budget 2015-2016

E) Page 62, Budget 2014-2015.

F) Page 55, Budget 2013-2014.

G) Page 52, Budget 2012-2013.

H) Page 115, Annual Report 2016-2017

I) Page 110, Annual Report 2015-2016.

J) Page 81, Annual Report 2014-2015

K) Page 82, Annual Report 2013-2014.

L) Page 103, Annual Report 2012-2013.

You can see that something is going a bit wrong. Four years ago Manningham Council could estimate their projected income in their budget to within around 2%. Now it appears Manningham Council has forgotten how to do this. Their budget income figures are getting more and more inaccurate as the years progress. And they are always inaccurate in the same direction. That this, they continually UNDERESTIMATE their income to a greater and greater degree.

I think we can all appreciate that budget figures (projections) will never be 100% accurate. But how is it possible for the council to be getting worse and worse at it? How is it possible to be off in their figures by almost $22million for 2016/2017 when a few years ago they could get it right to within 1 to 2 million?

We don't have the Annual Report for 2017/2018 yet, but if the trend continues, they will be out by an even greater figure for the year just ended.

But Ah, you may say. How do we know that the Budget and Annual Report figures are made up by the same things. Are we comparing apples with apples here?

I say we most certainly are. Let me give you graphics showing income figures from the Budgets and Annual Reports for the last two years.

First the budget for 2016/2017.

Next the income figures in the annual report for 2016/2017.

There is only one additional entry in the Annual Report Income. It is for an additional $122,000 for a return on an investment the council has. But that $122,000 does not account for the $21.9 million dollar difference for the year. Otherwise if you compare the items included in the income figures, they line up almost item by item.

Next the budget for 2015/2016.

Now, the income in the annual report for 2015/2016,

Again, the only additional entry in the Annual Report income figure is the return on an investment the council has which came to $522,000. But again, this does not account for the $8 million difference between the budget and annual report income figures for that year. And here also, if you compare the items included in the two income figures, you will see that they compare almost item by item.

As you can see, we are comparing apples with apples except for one line item.

So why is the council underestimating their income when they prepare their budget? It seems they are. And it seems they are doing this to a greater and greater extent as the years go progress.

Does this mean anything? Is there anything significant in the council repeatedly underestimating their income?

Is the council crying poor to the state government?

They could be, but it is unlikely.

It is true that the budget documents are probably more widely read and examined. People are interested in the council's plans for the future. That is: what money is going to be spent on, what they are not going to spend money on and what income they are going to take in, and so on.

Whereas, on the other hand, Annual reports are about the past. And it is possible that people are more interested in future plans than they are about what happened in the past.

It is also true that one of the ongoing complaints that Manningham Council has is that the state government is getting local councils to take on more work, but is not providing the funding to do it.

But if the council is crying poor, then the state government would be able to see it easily. Both the budget and annual report documents are submitted to the state govenment and it is probably safe to assume that someone in the state government reads them and compares the figures in them.

Is Manningham Council just after more money?

In my view, councils are always after money. But what is important to note here is that the planned income in the budget is basically 'spoken for'. That is there are various expenses, projects, plans and so on listed in the budget that basically nearly use all the money that the council plans to take in for that year.

So if the council underestimates their income for a year, then provided the additional income is not in the form of government grants (which typically need to be spent of certain specified areas) then the council will have a windfall that year that they can largely spend on what they like.

This is because any unforeseen income (provided it is not in the form of government grants) is not 'spoken for' in the budget. That is the council has no stated plans at the time the budget is prepared to spend this unexpected windfall so when it appears, they can spend it on whatever they like.

This by itself would be an incentive to understate the projected income for the year. It is always good to have extra money on hand to spend on whatever you like.

Could there be any other reasons?

There is one.

Manningham Council is facing a problem. From the figures they publish, there is a trend for staff pay to take up a larger and larger proportion of the rate money they take in. Usually the council spends about 50% of our rate money on wages and salaries. But in some years it can be much higher.

The problem is this. The more of our rates that go towards wages and salaries, then the less the council has to spend on services to the residents.

And there is a second problem. We expect something of real benefit in return for the money we pay the council. As they spend more of this money on themselves and less and less on the residents, we start to notice and ask questions about what is going on.

Off course, no government body likes to be in this situation because they look as though they are really only interested in taking care of themselves.

Lets take a look the size of this problem. Let us look at the proportion of our rate money that is spent on wages and salaries. Note that all figures in the table below are in $,000 and all figures have been taken from Annual Reports not budgets. In this way we can be sure we are looking at the real figures and expenses.

Note also that I go back seven financial years simply because that is all the Annual Reports I have available.

Year	Rates & Charges	Employee Expenses	Percentage of Rates
2016/2017	$82,819^F	$51,099^F	61.7%
2015/2016	$81,370^E	$47,890^E	58.9%
2014/2015	$75,142^D	$45,948^D	61.1%
2013/2014	$83,326^C	$43,730^C	52.2%
2012/2013	$79,086^B	$41,200^B	52.1%
2011/2012	$73,102^A	$46,841^A	64.1%
2010/2011	$68,868^A	$29,071^A	42.2%

A) Annual Report 2012, page 120.

B) Annual Report 2013, page 103.

C) Annual Report 2014, page 82.

D) Annual Report 2015, page 94.

E) Annual Report 2016, page 110.

F) Annual Report 2017, page 115.

You can see that the proportion of our rate money spent on wages and salaries jumps around quite a bit. Sometimes it can be as low as 42% and other times it is as high as 64%.

Also if you ignore the once-off high in 2011/2012, you will see this proportion is trending upwards. By this I mean that the proportion of our rates they spend on wages and salaries is increasing.

It appears that Manningham Council is having difficulty containing the growth in their own wages. Manningham Council needs to keep this well managed and under control otherwise people will start to ask questions.

But Manningham has a third problem that puts them in an even worse situation.

A few years back the state government introduced a control on the amount by which councils can increase their income from rates. Councils were not allowed to increase the rates they charge - in total - by more than CPI. And CPI is currently around 2.4%

Manningham Council complained about this very strongly. They claimed that they had expenses that increase more than CPI.

And they are right.

The salary they pay their staff increases at around 3.5% each year. This annual increase is actually locked in by their enterprise award agreement. And it is these two things present them with this third problem.

Council rates can only increase now by 2.4%. Their salaries are locked in to increase by 3.5% each year. So basically they are in a situation where they are committed to a salary increase of 3.5% each year but they can only increase rates at 2.4% each year.

What effect will this have on the proportion of our rates they spend on their wages and salaries?

I think you can see that the council is in a bad spot. The government has basically put them in a situation where they need to spend more and more of their rate income on wages and salaries and less and less on services. Soon the proportion will increase from 62% of rates to 64% of rates, then to 68% and 72%.

Soon people will start asking questions. What are they getting in return for all the money they give to the council?

And this off course must never be allowed to happen. Manningham Council simply has to do something.

They need a source of money that increases by at least 3.5% each year and has no strings attached so they can spend it on whatever they need to.

And this is quite possibly exactly what the council is up to by 'gaming the system', as they appear to be doing.

They consistently underestimate their income in the budget and get an 'unexpected' windfall each year. That windfall, provided it is not in the form of government grants, can be spent on whatever they like. Which in their situation just happens to be themselves.

A Lesson to be learned.

It is interesting to note where the council directs their efforts and their skills and energies.

If the council put as much energy and thought into running the council efficiently and reducing costs of services, as they did to ensuring their own pay increases, then they would be able to do a more with less.

But no council, in fact no government body is encouraged to do that. They are not driven by the same forces as private enterprise. What drives government bodies typically is protection of their own jobs, protection of their own salaries, protection of their own superannuation and a desire for power.

Because they can take money by force, efficiency is simply not an issue to them. In private enterprise, you need to offer a product that people are willing to spend hard earned money on voluntarily. But in all government bodies, this is not the case. It does not matter if what they do is pointless, inefficient, wasteful or simply not wanted. They can take money from you by force.

And so for government bodies, reducing costs is simply not an issue. In fact, if you look at the council's efforts to improve efficiency and reduce costs, you can see that, to them, it is just another game they play to satisfy and deflect resident's concerns. That is, they throw the residents a bone every now and then to keep them off their backs.

It is unfortunate that nearly all the people who work in government bodies usually only know this demotivating, wasteful and inefficient government culture.

Fortunately there is one or two I know of at Manningham Council who have real world experience in private enterprise and they provide a stabilizing influence on the self-important arrogance and indifference others have come to accept.

But from what I can tell, the rest of the council is made up or career government bureaucrats who know only how to appropriate and spend as much money as they can and who then go on to convince themselves (and anyone else who is willing to listen), that their work is worthwhile, important, necessary and that are doing it as efficiently as possible.

Most of us who live in the real world do not see things that way.

There was a time, not so long ago, where councils were only concerned about rubbish, roads and rates. As for the other things councils now do, private groups stepped up to fill these needs. And many times, these people volunteered their time as part of charitable organisations.

How things have changed. Now we pay huge amounts of money to a council that has little interest in efficiency, value for money and elimination of waste. A council that devotes all it's best energy to it's highest priority – that is - ensuring their own annual pay increases.

Manningham Council – a lawless and criminal organisation.

Blogger — Tue, 22 May 2018 10:55:20 GMT

Lawless and Criminal?

Am I exaggerating?

Most likely not.

Manningham Council make rules and laws which they fanatically enforce upon the rest of us.

But when the council has to comply with their own laws or when they break their own laws, the story is very different.

It appears that Manningham Council does not think they should live under the same laws as the rest of us.

When their own laws get in their way, they simply remove them. When they break their own laws, they try to sweep the whole incident under the carpet – as quickly as possible.

Please read the Council Minutes for 24 April 2018.

So what happened?

Manningham Council Disregard and Break their own Laws.

Manningham Council has, over the years, renovated, altered and added to the council offices in Manningham Road. The problem is, that back in 1991, Manningham Council, themselves, put a heritage overlay on their old Council offices. Their aim at the time was to protect the heritage value of the old Council offices. The offices were not to be changed or renovated without careful consideration being given to preserving the heritage value of the building.

However Manningham went and changed, renovated etc. the old council offices WITHOUT EVEN CHECKING if there was a heritage overlay on them.

So how much did these alterations effect the heritage value of the council offices? Let me give you the council's own words.

"Advice from heritage consultant’s Lovell Chen has confirmed that the building is no longer of significance due to the extensive transformation of the original building." (3.10 page 171 Minutes 24 April 2018).

That's right. Manningham Council ruined any heritage value the old offices once had.

Manningham Council ignored their own laws.

Manningham Council has recently remembered they put a heritage overlay on the old council offices AND that they SHOULD NOT HAVE DONE ANY of these alterations, additions or renovations.

What was to be done? Clearly Manningham Council is in breach of their own laws.

What would Manningham Council do to us if we did the same thing?

Let us consider for a moment what Manningham Council would do to US if we owned a property with an overlay on it and then went and changed our property, obliterating the very reason why the overlay was put on it in the first place. AND if we did all this without getting council approval.

I am not going to speculate here. I am going to give you exactly what Manningham Council did to a migrant family who did exactly the same thing. This family changed a property that had a council overlay on it and ignored (or did not know about) the overlay.

Please see VCAT case 2044 of 27 October 2011. Please also see my article on this site "Out of Control Environmentalism".

A migrant family bought a property in Warrandyte and it appears they wanted to plant some trees from the 'old country'. They brought in some soil, dug a trench and put up a retaining wall. But their property had a council overlay which prevented such things AND they didn't get council permission.

The council had them before VCAT.

The council insisted everything they did be undone and they put in a management plan for the NEXT 10 YEARS to ensure everything was. They insisted:

The landowners were not to carry out any more work.
They must identify all weeds and put in a weed management plan.
Identify and remove all soil, rock and other material brought in.
The earth must be returned to the trench IN THE EXACT LAYERS IT WAS REMOVED. And this must be done UNDER THE SUPERVISION of someone approved by the council, who no doubt would check that gravel was layered correctly back in the trench, clay was layered correctly back in the trench and so on.
The current owners (and any future owners) of the land must comply with the 10 year plan demanded by the council.
The owners had to have various reports prepared by experts (at their own cost) regarding native vegetation, habitat values, and so on.
They had to have a report prepared by an expert for vegetation to be planted to remediate areas they made changes to.

The council demanded a lot more than I have mentioned above. Please see my other article for the full list of demands made by the council. The owners simply had to do all of this.

In my view, these council demands were onerous, punitive and no doubt meant to serve as an example to others who would do the same thing.

Now what happens when the council does the exact same thing?

Absolutely nothing, that's what.

There is no requirement for them to undo the damage to the council offices. Nothing. No one will be fired. There will be no disciplinary measures at all upon anyone.

Instead Manningham Council is now working desperately to sweep the whole incident under the carpet as quickly as they can.

So how will Manningham Council get out of this mess?

Manningham Council has a tried and sure method of excusing themselves from their own laws.

The council has employed a 'heritage consultant' to re-check the heritage value of the old council offices.

What do we expect the result to be?

The heritage consultant concluded that the council back in 1991 was simply mistaken to think the old offices had any heritage value in the first place. So no harm has been done by the current council when they altered and renovated it beyond all recognition!

I know that to many people that seems entirely reasonable. The council employs an independent consultant to check their decision making process. Surely these consultants will arrive at an objective and realistic assessment of the heritage value of the old council offices.

You may think so. But that is not how things work. You see, the council has done similar things before.

The same thing happened with the old Eastern Links Golf course.

The council has used an 'independent' external consultants before – for the exact same thing.

The council had placed an overlay over the ENTIRE Eastern Links Golf Course. When this very large piece of land was owned by the Golf club, the council overlay was an onerous and burdensome restriction on the use of the land. The golf club had to get approval from the council for any change they wanted to make to the club buildings, the forested areas, the greens and so on.

However this property was sold and the council planned to use this valuable real estate for high density development.

However they had a problem. The land had large areas of 'native heathy forest' that the council said was indigenous to Manningham and of great environmental value. And for this (and other environmental reasons) there was a protective overlay on the ENTIRE property.

So what could they do? This council overlay was going to place massive restrictions on what the council could do with the land.

Again they resorted to an 'independent consultant'. They employed a consultant again to re-assess the heritage value of the land.

And again we find the same outcome. The consultant came back with exactly what the council wanted to hear. Let me give you their exact words.

"'Tullamore' (that is, the original name of the homestead when the property was a farm years ago. This house was later turned into the golf club house) is retained in a landscaped curtilage (i.e. a 10 meter buffer area around the buildings) that seems appropriate and sufficient for the future conservation ..."

Please see "Heritage Assessment in accordance with Schedule to the Development Plan Overlay July 2013" from Bryce Raworth Pty. Ltd. Page 8.

The council again had exactly what they wanted. Armed with this consultant's report they were able to run bulldozers through the 'Native Heathy Forest' to put in roads, and so on. All they had to protect was the old house and a 10 meter area around it. That is exactly what they wanted to hear. They were free to do whatever they wanted to the rest of the property.

Note that this is something that the council would never have allowed the Golf Club to do. The Golf Club were simply not allowed to make such drastic changes to the indigenous and environmentally valuable 'native heathy forest'.

We see again that Manningham Council is quite willing to place the most burdensome and onerous restrictions upon US and what WE can do with our own land.

But when it comes to themselves, Manningham Council has absolutely no intention to live under the same laws they impose on us.

They dispose of them in a heartbeat when their own laws restrict what they want to do.

So are these Independent Consultants 'Independent'?

Not in my view.

I am not exaggerating when I say that external consultants always tell the council what they want to hear. It appears that somehow the council lets these consultants know what they expect to see in their report, and the consultants, hoping to get further well-paying government work, appear to happily listen and oblige.

We are told these consultants are an independent check on what the council does. But that is not the case.

If you read the minutes and reports published by the council, you will see that external consultants always tell the council what they want to hear. As far as I have read, I have never seen them being the bearers of genuine bad news or bad outcomes for the council.

What I have noticed is this. If a consultant has to mention some minor matter that could reflect badly on the council, then they are very careful to play it down and heap copious praise on the council before and after they mention it. This can be seen when the council employs outside organisations for their satisfaction surveys.

I do not think they are independent at all. They are just presented that way. The council somehow makes it clear to them what they expect to see in their reports. These consultants are not silly and know how to listen. AND they are eager to get further council work, if possible.

So what is Council's strategy to extricate themselves?

Basically it is arrogance. They plan not to listen to anyone who says anything about this they do not want to hear.

They are going to focus solely on the report from their 'independent' heritage consultant – who just happens to tell them exactly what they want to hear.

Manningham Council will not listen to anything they don't like.

The Warrandyte Historical Society have an interest in the heritage value of buildings in the city. But they are far too polite when talking to the council.

In the minutes they are reported as saying "

"Warrandyte Historical Society (relating to 699 Doncaster Road, Doncaster) says Heritage Council process has not been followed; and sends wrong message to the owners of heritage listed properties." (3.9 page 171 minutes)

The council "sends the wrong message..."

You bet they do.

Please allow me to translate and elaborate on what the Warrandyte Historical Society might possibly mean:

"Manningham Council has broken it's own laws, disregarded their own overlays, did not follow procedures or go about the work in the way they expect us to and finally after changing the building beyond all recognition, they simply want to excuse themselves of all wrong doing."

In short Manningham Council are behaving like complete hypocrites AND if they can simply walk away from the very things they expect us to follow, then why should we follow them.

In my view, this might be what the Warrandyte Historical Society means.

And they would be quite right in my view.

Manningham Council did not get any approval to do what they did. They did not even check to see if there was a heritage overlay over the old offices. They did not even think of preserving any of it's heritage value. No, they were just in a rush to make the changes they wanted.

The procedure they should have followed is quite straight forward.

If the council wanted to renovate the council offices, then BEFORE anything was done, they should have reassessed the historical value of the old offices. Not after the changes were made but BEFORE making the changes.

That is precisely what they demand WE do. If we tried to justify our actions AFTER the event, they simply would not listen. They would insist that we are just trying to excuse ourselves and justify ourselves breaking the law. They would insist we did not follow the correct procedure.

But right now, they don't want to remember how they mistreat residents who did the exact same thing they did.

Why was a heritage overlay put on the old offices?

Let us see what the council said back in 1991 when they put the overlay on the council offices.

"The Statement of Significance identified the building as being, ‘Of State significance as the most complex and arguably the finest expression of a Miesian pavilion in the state.’ Two significant trees on the site were also identified as being of significance in the Manningham Heritage Garden and Significant Tree Study" (2.28 page 168 Minutes)

The above quotation simply screams of the lawless and criminal behaviour of Manningham Council in changing this building beyond recognition and destroying the two trees. (Yes, the trees were removed to build the MC² building. And here too, the council did not even bother to check if they had put an overlay on the trees.)

Manningham Council simply cannot let the above stand. It is a stink, stain or blot that they simply have to get rid of. So they employ a Heritage Consultant, Lovell Chen, to re-check the accuracy of the original statement.

They got it seriously wrong in 1991.

I think their heritage consultant knew precisely what was expected of her and she knew what the council wanted to see in her report.

I say this because Lovell Chen concludes that nothing said in the original report of 1991 was accurate. Every thing was wrong. I find it odd that Lovell Chen can find nothing positive to say about the 1991 decision. She finds fault everywhere she can.

How could the council get it so wrong back in 1991?

The council back in 1991 would have checked their opinions against other sources. The report would have been the product of a council committee. Such committees normally consult with a variety of experts in the field and other authorities, just as the council does now. This is how government usually works.

The council would have consulted with other architects, other experts, probably even the state government. Their conclusion would not be the conclusion of one person but would be a summary of current expert opinion.

At the end of the process there would have been council officers who scrutinized and checked the final report. Again, this is how usually council works.

Now Lovell Chen comes along and she, ONE PERSON, goes and says they were ALL wrong. Completely wrong in fact. Very odd isn't it.

Lovell Chen says,

"‘In terms of its form, neither the original building as it existed in 1964 nor the building assessed in 2006 (sic) could reasonably be described as a Miesian pavilion…’ and ‘On the basis of the above, it is evident that the building does not meet the threshold of State significance.’" (2.30 page 169 minutes)

Lovell Chen says they got it completely wrong. That's right - all the experts they consulted, the council staff who reviewed it, possibly also the state government, everyone they went to for advice and expert opinion. They all got it completely wrong.

Desperate arguments.

You can tell how desperate Lovell Chen is. She is desperately trying to give the council exactly what they want. The council quotes her report as saying:

"It noted that the citation provided little to substantiate the assertion of its significance. Notably, it included little comparative analysis and made no attempt to place the work within the Blocks’ oeuvre or to place their work within the local architectural context." (2.29 page 169 minutes)

The blocks "oeuvre"...

In my view, language like that is usually meant to do one thing. If you do not understand the french word 'oeuvre' then clearly you are an unsophisticated philistine and could not possibly understand the finer points of architecture... so stay out of the conversation.

In my view, statements like that are not meant to explain anything. What they are meant to do is exclude people from the conversation and discussion. People who are interested but who don't know the lingo better be careful. The council doesn't want to hear what they have to say.

And clearly the council back in 1991 did consider the block's "oeuvre".

The original reports says the old council offices were "the finest expression of a Miesian pavilion in the state."

To start with, Lovell Chen may not be using the word correctly. Oeuvre normally refers to the entire collection of work belonging to an artist, writer, musical composer on in this case architect.

Clearly they did understand the work of Mies van der Rohe and also examined or at least possibly checked all other examples of his style of architecture in Victoria. So they were familiar with this architectural style.

Here we see Lovell Chen making sweeping statements not supported by fact or example or proof - but simply based on her own opinion.

Also why is it important to place the building in the 'local architectural context'? They put the overlay on the old council offices not the architectural context or other buildings nearby. Why are other nearby buildings suddenly important? Why can't we understand this simply as saying the old council offices were of historical value while any nearby buildings were not. Surely if other nearby buildings were of historical value, they would have been mentioned in the statement of significance.

I get the impression this latter argument is a bit desperate. She tries to make it sound important and significant but really it is of no significance and carries little weight when you scrutinize it.

Lets look at other things Lovell Chen says:

Quotations are taken from page 169 of the minutes.

"The citation provided little to substantiate the assertion of its significance".

What she is ignoring is the process by which the citation came to be included in the statement of significance in 1991. Unlike what Lovell Chen is doing, this statement of significance was not the view of one person. It was a view held by many council staff and most likely by many experts in the field.

"The citation also made no distinction between original and later fabric in its physical assessment of the building"

She ALSO makes no mention of the significance, character or quality of the additions of 'fabric' to the building. Sometimes alterations improve, enhance and extend the original architecture. She makes no mention of this or has any discussion of any of this. In her view, changes are wrong and diminish the historical significance of a building.

She simply uses the fact that the building had been changed over the years (as most buildings are) and the benefit or otherwise of the changes is not mentioned or discussed. That is not much of an argument.

Please consider this. Manningham Council requires any changes made to heritage building complement the existing architecture of a building. Many people who own buildings with a heritage overlay have done so under council supervision. So it is possible to add to the value of the building just as it is to take away from the heritage value of a building.

The thing that is of importance is that in 1991 the building, with all it's history and it's changes, was seen by many to be of significance historically and architecturally. That is the important point.

"And contained a small number of errors and omissions in relation to the history and development of the building."

So a small number of errors and omissions in the history and development of the building render the statement of significance wrong. Really?

We most likely all recognize the Parthenon in Athens as being of historical significance. But do we have a complete understanding and record of it's history and development. Off course we do not. Does that mean it is not right to say it is historically significant or it's historical value should be questioned? Off course not. Now I know there are major differences between the old council offices and the Parthenon in Greece, but the principle here is valid.

Also consider this. Was the original statement of significance prepared in 1991 meant to be a full record of the history of the building or was it meant to be a statement saying it was historically significant? It probably was not meant to be a statement of the full and complete history of the building and did not intend to give the full history and development of the building. In 1991 they may only have wanted to include events and changes they saw as important. So this argument is really not of importance.

"‘…its public face derives from works undertaken in the 1990s by, architects, Perrott Lyon Matheson. It provides no useful insights into the work of Mies van der Rohe or his influence on local architecture practice. It is an amalgam of architectural interventions…the building does not present as a well-resolved or coherent whole. On this basis, the building is not considered to be of sufficient aesthetic or architectural significance to warrant a HO'."

Again, everything she says in the above quote should be prefaced by 'In my opinion', which I note she does not do.

It is all her opinion. Note that her 'amalgam of architectural interventions' could also be seen as complementary additions to the architectural and historical value of the building. But that is not how she portrays it.

All of it is 'her opinion' only.

If the council were to be genuine and sincere in their assessment, they would get the opinions of other people in this matter and not rely on just one person's opinions.

I note that the Warrandyte Historical Society raised some objections to the assessment. But the council was simply in no mood to listen. The council replies to the Historical Society's objections and says:

"No changes are recommended in response to this (ie. The Historical Societies) submission. The submission and the Lovell Chen evidence will be interrogated further at the panel hearing. At that hearing Council would call Lovell Chen as an expert witness." (3.13 page 171)

The council clearly is going to rely solely on Lovell Chen's opinions. In fact they say as much.

"The Lovell Chen review, upon which Council has relied," (3.11 page 171).

This is no way to decide the fate of a building that was once regarded by many inside and outside the council to be of historical significance to the city of Manningham.

The council should do a comprehensive review - and do it honestly - with out pre-deciding the outcome or 'conveying' what they want to see in the consultant's reports.

Lovell Chen is very useful to Manningham Council.

Lovell Chen has given Manningham Council exactly what they wanted and the council is relying solely on Lovell Chen to get them out of the mess they created. They want to sweep their own criminal and lawless activity under the rug as soon as possible.

"Advice from heritage consultant’s Lovell Chen has confirmed that the building is no longer of significance due to the extensive transformation of the original building" (3.10 page 171)

That's right! Manningham Council ruined all heritage value in their own heritage building.

But one person's opinion will get the council off the hook. Just forget about what others have said back in 1991 and others may say today about this matter.

The way Manningham Council has approached this problem indicates that they believe they have the right to disregard or break their own laws and do so with impunity.

That is a far cry from what would happen to us if we were to do the exact same thing they did.

A Need or a Want?

Blogger — Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:16:03 GMT

What is the difference between a 'need' and a 'want'?

Most people have confronted this question. Manningham Council also appears to be painfully aware of the difference.

Manningham Council's 'Want'.

Manningham Council have 'wants' that they know cannot be justified as real 'needs'.

For instance they 'want' to translate some of the council material into various languages. The reason they give is that 42% of Manningham residents speak a language other than English at home. Please see page 340 from the minutes of 27 Feb 2018:

Manningham has a rich cultural diversity with 42% of Manningham residents speaking a language other than English at home and 40% being born overseas. This level of diversity is higher for Manningham when compared to the whole of the State of Victoria and the Melbourne Metropolitan area.

A review has been undertaken of Council’s communications channels to ensure it is fit for purpose for Manningham’s CALD (Culturally and Linguistically Diverse) community.

Council used a range of community feedback sources to inform this review. The key needs and opportunities highlighted were:

residents want more quality translated material on a wide range of Council service topics that is easily accessible

residents are open to using new technology, especially for digital (website) enhancements
make it easy to get information and access to Council services

The report outlines CALD communication improvements being made via a number of channels including:

updated and enhanced language services organisational guidelines
Manningham Matters content
an enhanced universal interpreter symbol
enhancements and better information and transparency in correspondence to directly affected residents on major projects and initiatives
on-demand and on-site interpreting services
expanding Council’s CALD publications and information factsheets
CALD media and advertising, and
greater CALD content and services information via Council’s corporate website.

The review outcomes support Council Plan Goal 1.2 “A connected and inclusive community’.

First, notice how the council reads a 'want' as a 'need'.

Now, lets try to examine the business case for what the council wants to do.

42% of Manningham residents speak a language other than English at home, but this does not mean they cannot speak English. This number alone does not mean that council publications need to be translated into other languages.
If someone in these households has difficulty reading English, this also does not mean they have no one among their family who can assist them. In my experience (which I will explain below), I have found that in situations where someone cannot speak English well, there are other family members who can assist them read and understand material.
I think the question that really needs to be asked is this: "Are there any Manningham residents who are unable to understand English and also have no-one to assist them? What I find odd is that Manningham Council did not go into detail regarding this in the minutes. The closest they came is saying that 7.6% (of 42% of residents) do not speak English well (see page 342 of the minutes). But they did not give any details of the situation these people found themselves in.

Manningham Council's investigation of real migrant needs.

The paragraph below is the closest that Manningham Council came to investigating the real needs of migrant families who cannot speak English. Please see page 342 of the minutes:

4.2 CALD Practice and Improvements

4.2.1 Census 2016 – Languages spoken at home and English proficiency According to the Census 2016, the main languages, other than English, spoken at home by Manningham residents remained the same, with the largest changes between 2011 and 2016 being for those speaking Mandarin (+5,535 persons), Farsi (Persian/Dari +977 persons), Italian (-825 persons) and Greek (-813 persons).

While 42% speak a language other than English at home, residents’ proficiency in English was high, with 53.6% of residents peaking English only, and 7.6% speaking another language and English not well or not at all.

So 7.6% (presumably of the 42%) do not speak English well or not at all.

But do these people have family members who can help them? Or have they recently arrived and are learning or want to learn English? How many have no one to turn to who can help them? As I mentioned Manningham council did not go into detail in the minutes about the situations that this 7.6% of people find themselves in.

It appears that Manningham council looked carefully into the situations migrant families found themselves in, and what they found did not give them the evidence and numbers they wanted to justify their translation program.

So what they did is give us that bit of information that supported their cause and left it at that. i.e. "7.6% spoke English not well or not at all."

But this itself if no justification. As I said before, do these people have family members they can turn to for help? Evidently they do. Because Manningham Council was unable to use their actual situations to justify translating council publications into other language.

Lets consider some examples of situations migrants may be in.

I have found that elderly migrants who cannot speak English are very rarely left alone. In my experience, migrant families would not allow a situation like this to occur.

Having married an Asian woman I get to visit quite a few of the Asian homes in Manningham. If there is an elderly person who cannot speak English, then in every case I know of, they are being taken care of by their family. And there is more than one family member who speaks English very well and are there to explain things they cannot understand and take them to places they need to go to.

Regarding migrant families who have just arrived. I think the question should be this. Should we print council material in their languages or should we help them to learn English?

I am sure that if people who have recently arrived plan to stay, they would identify a very real need to learn English. You would think the best course of action for Manningham Council would be to help them to learn English - provide or organize classes so people could come up to speed as quickly as possible. But it seems Manningham council has chosen to entrench 'diversity' rather than encourage communication.

Now a few other issues.

Regarding the 'want' for translated material expressed by some migrants.

It comes down to how you ask people. If you say it as a free service supplied by the council, then yes, people would be likely to say that they would like it. However if you give people a choice and say they can either have a reduction in their council rates or the translation service, then do you think they would still be so keen to say they 'want' this service?

Wouldn't they prefer a reduction in their rates so they retain more of their hard earned money? I am sure that if you put the question this way, you would get a very different answer.

Also a 'need' for an Interpreter service can be a type of self-fulfilling prophecy because Manningham Council is able to create and develop a 'want' among the residents for this service themselves.

For instance, by providing some translated materials and sending it to people who speak another language at home, you build up an expectation for that material and a hope that other material will be translated as well. Consider the following from page 343 of the minutes:

4.2.7 CALD publications and information factsheets

Council translated a range of brochures and service information annually. As part of the review, the key information requests and top issues residents make inquiries or complain to Council about were considered. In response, a range of resources are being developed, to be available in hard copy as well as digital and audio files. The topics include parking; animal management; planning and building; waste and recycling; vegetation management; road conditions; drainage; emergency management; Your Council and Councillors; halls and facilities for hire; leisure centres, libraries, neighbourhood houses and community centres; aged and disability support services, and family and children’s services. This will be available by the end of February 2018.

Manningham Council is very determined.

Manningham Council is not going to be stopped just because they cannot justify their translation program based on an examination of the situations migrant families find themselves in.

But before they can spend public money they need to come up with suitable justification.

So how are they going to justify what they want to do?

Please see page 344 of the minutes. Manningham Council turned to 'focus' groups.

5.2 Communication and Engagement

Council used a range of community feedback sources to inform this review, including the extensive 1000s of voices engagement initiative which informed the development of the Council Plan 2017-2021; qualitative focus groups held in 2017 for the redevelopment of Council’s community news magazine Manningham Matters; Citizen Connect research in 2017; and surveys and focus groups held in 2017 with the Manningham Community panel. The review overview and key outcomes were also presented and discussed with Council’s Access and Equity Advisory Committee in December 2017.

The problem with all these groups is that Manningham Council can 'guide' them to give the outcomes they want. This is not hard to do. Please allow me to explain.

First Manningham council can place vocal people who support the council's agenda either on these groups or have them run the groups. They can be assured their concerns and interests will be raised and addressed and that very likely they will get the results they want.

Even if the group does not agree with the council program, all the group needs to say is that what the council wants 'may be a good thing' and that is enough.

This is because Manningham Council is very good at hearing what they want to hear and ignoring what they don't like. There have been some outrageous examples of this in the past. For example, the renewal of the special charge scheme for Tunstall Square was a glaring example. Also the proposed High Ball Stadium at Mullum Mullum creek was another.

In the latter instance the council simply did not want to listen to local residents so they accused them of doing something wrong to give themselves a reason to ignore them. However, the residents were well within their constitutional rights to do what they did.

Manningham council has demonstrated they can have very selective hearing when it suits them.

Why is Manningham Council so determined to translate their publications?

There are a few ways of looking at this.

First, the council look good in front of their bosses in the state government.

If Manningham Council translates council publications into other languages, they would be seen by the State government as progressing their CALD (culturally and linguistically diverse) program.

And from the minutes, we can see this is a very important issue for Manningham Council.

Secondly, it means more money in the pockets of council workers.

Please consider this.

If Manningham Council only did what was actually needed and only delivered services that were genuinely needed by residents, then there would be a real saving in money. And council rates could be reduced.

But Manningham Council will never allow that to happen.

Let us consider why they will never reduce our rates.

First Manningham Council collects far more money than they really need. With rates increasing in real terms between 5% to 8% per year and inflation increasing at around 2% to 3% per year, the council has a windfall nearly every year.

And you can forget about the state government's election promise that our rates will only increase with CPI (around 2.4%). Manningham Council ignored that and got around that years ago and the State Government did absolutely nothing to stop them.

Our rates actually increased 8.3% between 2015 and 2016 (See annual report 2015/2016 page 110)
Our rates increased 5.5% between 2014 and 2015 (See annual report 2014/2015 page 81).
Our rates increased 5.6% between 2013 and 2014 (See annual report 2013/2014 page 85)
And after this orgy of greed and deceit our real rates increased 1.3% between 2016 and 2017 (See annual report 2016/2017 page 115)

Our rates have actually increased nothing like the 2.4% per year as promised by the state government.

If our rates had increased by 2.4% over a 4 year period they would have increased by 9.9% (1.024 x 1.024 x 1.024 x 1.024 = 1.099). However, based on the actual increases, our rates have gone up by 22% (1.083 x 1.055 x 1.056 x 1.013 = 1.22). You can see that it pays for Manningham Council to ignore the State Government election promises.

So what is the council going to do with their windfall in rates each year? There is no way Manningham Council is going to give it back to the ratepayers.

First of all, Manningham Council is of the view that ratepayers already have too much money.

Please consider the following from the 342 of the minutes:

While Manningham has a diverse community, it is also a very skilled and higher income earning cohort compared to the rest of the State of Victoria and the Greater Melbourne Metropolitan area, supporting a balanced approach to providing language services to the Manningham community.

That's right. Manningham residents have more money than most, so they are going to get a 'balanced' approach to providing language services.

The word 'balanced' in thrown in there to make is sound as though it is reasonable. In fact, what the council is really doing is providing these services even though they are fully aware there is not a genuine need for these services. So it is not 'balanced' in any real sense of the word.

We are going to get language services simply because we can afford it as a community - not because we genuinely need it. We are getting it simply because the local council can extract enough money from us to pay for it.

Second, we can see that the council believes ratepayers must be relieved of their excess money so the council can provide services.

So how does Manningham Council get our excess money into their pockets?

One big way of achieving this is inventing unnecessary work - and having us pay for it.

What this means is more work, more overtime, more projects, more staff, more promotions, basically more everything.

By inventing work they can be assured that most of the windfall the council receives each year ends up as wages and salaries and pay increases in their own pockets.

This invented work is just pointless activity -- and waste – nothing more. More importantly, it is activity that they can sell to the ratepayers as 'service'. And whether that service is really needed or not can be easily hidden from the ratepayers (which is exactly what the council is doing with this translation 'service').

Manningham Council are really like the old 'shake down artists' from the gangster period of U.S. history. They find ways to extract as much money from us as they can to fund their wants, pleasures and private expenses, just like the gangsters of old.

This translation service appears to be one of these activities. I think it is quite clear that we really don't need it. The council could not justify it by looking at the actual situations that migrants find themselves in. So they had to dredge around for more justification and turned to focus groups where they could either engineer or selectively pick out the justification they needed.

So, in one fell swoop, they can look good in front of their bosses in the state government and can also put a lot more or our money in their own pockets. For them it is win, win and they can have a good laugh about it. For us it is loose, loose.

Deeply Unpopular Practices of Manningham Council

Blogger — Tue, 30 Jan 2018 09:52:52 GMT

At last, Manningham Council is giving money back to the residents.

Or are they?

It is good to hear that the council will no longer insist residents contribute towards the cost of building roads that run past their properties. Roads, which by the way, are used far more by the general public than they are by the residents who live along them.

For as long as I can remember this has been a deeply unpopular practice of local councils. Even as far back as the early 1960's when the road in front of my grandmother's home in Mooroolbark was built. The cost to residents was so high then, that one elderly woman, unable to pay the money demanded by the council, took her own life as a way out of her problem. This was something that deeply shocked us.

Residents will still need to pay for vehicle crossings - which is probably all they should have been asked to pay for from the beginning.

"The report also notes that vehicle crossings solely benefit the property served by this infrastructure and, as such, property owners should continue to be required to fund their construction." (Minutes 12 Dec 2017. p138 11.1)

So why has this come about? Is the council finally being responsible with other people's money? Have they found ways to reduce their inflated costs so they can do more with less?

Not really.

The council gives three reasons.

"Although Council has the power under the Local Government Act 1989 to declare special rates or charges schemes, and to recover costs off those properties deemed to benefit from the schemes, the amount of contributions sought through special charges as a percentage of the total budget for road, footpath and drainage improvements is very low. Special rates or charges schemes are unpopular and the practical application of schemes can be more problematic, with an underlying risk that a special charge scheme costs more than the financial benefit to Council where a scheme is challenged in VCAT." (p139 2.1).

So we can see the reasons are:

The council's special charge schemes only contribute a small amount to the total cost of the roads.
The schemes are deeply unpopular with the residents.
If residents take the council to VCAT, the cost of the court case outweighs the money received from the special charge scheme.

So we can see this is not really due to newly found money management skills.

Rather it is a calculated decision which weights up the costs, benefits and potential problems of the scheme.

And note that Manningham Council will not to eliminate the practice entirely, as we can see here:

"Consequently, in future, it is proposed that capital improvement works be generally funded by Council, except in exceptional circumstances, subject to meeting several prerequisites, including securing CEO approval to initiate a special charge scheme." (p138 11.1)

There might be a lesson in this for us. And that is to not just accept what the council does with our money but to let the council know that we don't like the irresponsible ways in which these wastrells spend our money. Also it is worth taking the council to VCAT if you think you have a legitimate case against them.

This brings to mind other actions of Manningham Council that should also be just as deeply unpopular. But unfortunately because the general population is not directly effected by them, the council often receives very little criticism.

Let me give you one example.

Open Space Contribution Rates.

Did you know that when someone subdivides property and sells the smaller land parcels, usually they need to give a certain percentage of the land to the council. That is, give it free of charge so the council can provide parks and recreation facilities for the people who will live there.

Generally, in the past, between 5% to 8% of the land is given by the owner free of charge to the council.

Most would say that this seems reasonable. This practice does provide useful parkland and open space for the residents.

But we need to note that this land has really been given to the residents and the council is supposed to manage it properly. In principle it is our land not council land.

In the past, Manningham council has not been that responsible with this land. Some years back the council sold off numerous smaller blocks of land that they regarded as surplus. They tried to sell of a large parcel of land near where I live and would have done so if there was not an outcry from the people in the street against what they were doing. They ended up changing their policy just enough to quieten us. But we get the sense that they still intend to sell it and are just waiting for the right time to try again.

Now regarding the sale of that surplus park land. The council claims that they then used the money to build facilities at Ruffey Lake Park. If this is true then this also is an example of irresponsible council waste. They must have received a few million dollars for the sale of the surplus park land. Each block at the time would have fetched around $250,000 each.

And what did we get at Ruffey Lake Park? Some children's play equipment, barbeque equipment and some metal covered sheds. This is not much to show for all those millions of dollars. I cannot help but think that either the council were again just being irresponsible wastrells with our money or they redirected some of our money to meet other council expenses with Ruffey Lake that were not directly related to the recreational side of the park.

The massively generous gift of Mirvac to the residents of Manningham.

But getting back to the issue of the Open Space Contribution Rates.

Did you know that when the Eastern Golf Course was subdivided, Mirvac the developers, agreed to give 20% of the land to the council for use as recreational parkland? That was a massive amount of land to give free of charge to the council. It is well over the usual 5% to 8% the council requests from other subdivisions. It was one fifth of the total land - just given to the council for free.

You may think that was good and possibly it was. It was a massively generous gift agreed between Mirvac and Manningham Council.

So what did the council do next? This is where Manningham shows it's true nature, in particular their outrageous and rapacious greed.

Manningham Council comes after even more.

The council then made another demand to make upon Mirvac.

Do you know that the council usually discounts or reduces the rates to organisations that provide some service to the community. This is possibly done in the belief that the organisation is providing a service to the residents that otherwise the council should possibly provide. (See Cultural and Recreational Lands Act 1963 4(1).)

This happened with the Eastern Golf Course. Manningham Council deemed that they provided a service to the community and so they received a discounted rate bill each year.

Now when such organisations sell their land, problems arise for the buyer. In particular the council will insist that the next buyer of the land pay back to the council all the rate money the council lost in the previous 10 years when they reduced the previous organisations rates. (See Cultural and Recreational Lands Act 1963 4(5)ii. )

That's right! The council will come after the new owner and insist they make up their shortfall.

Can you believe that?

First of all, the council recognized that the previous owners provided a service to the community. The service was delivered and the community got to enjoy it. The council saved money because they did not have to provide such facilities.

And after all this, the council behaves like spoiled, greedy children and demand the new owner make up what they gave away.

So the council benefits twice. First they save money because they did not have to provide a similar service, then they get all that money back again. It is completely unfair and even a type of criminal theft.

When is a criminal act not a criminal act?

But oh no, it is not really a criminal act.

Because of local government collusion with the state government, this criminal act of greed is 'just and perfectly all right'. Why? Because a law has been passed making this criminal act of theft completely lawful.

I think both the state government and local councils know that what they are doing is simply unjust and outrageous. I think this because of the careful way in which they named this piece of legislation. They called it the "Cultural and Recreational Lands Act 1963". See here

Reading this title you would think it has something to do with the management of cultural land and parkland. But it is nothing of the sort.

It should really have been called something like "Cultural and Recreational Land Rates Concessions and Clawback Act 1963" because that is what is really going on. Clawback is the proper term for what is being done. You may have heard of 'clawback' in relation to over-paid social security payments by the Federal Government when the Federal Government wants their money back.

But the state government would never use the word 'clawback' in the title of this legislation. That would give the game way. Instead they conceal their outrageous greed behind an innocent sounding name.

How would you respond to the council's greed if you were Mirvac?

You see, Manningham Council is filled with people who only look at the law. To them, if the law permits them to do something then it is the right and good thing to do. They don't seem to have any other moral compass to assess their actions. This is a common sickness that runs in many government circles. They seem to think that 'all we have is the law' and there is no sense that some laws might be unjust or unfair and illegitimate.

Private organisations may have behaved differently. They might have thought that 20% of land is a big gift already and they would be satisfied with that.

Possibly private organisations may also want to prevent the working relationship from being poisoned, at least until the project is finished.

But not Manningham Council. Their avarice knows no bounds. They approached Mirvac for what they regarded as their rights under the law, even while the project was underway and the whole thing ended up in court.

The council has no idea how to function in the real world. Their greed is simply indecent.

I know that this does not effect ordinary residents directly. But we can see clearly the people who run Manningham Council, what their priorities are, what they do and how they behave. And I think we should respond with the same dislike and abhorrence as we do to their charges upon residents to build public roads.

The Community Grants Program.

Blogger — Tue, 30 Jan 2018 09:14:40 GMT

The Community Grants Program.

Each year Manningham council gives away around $1.7 million to not-for-profit groups that deliver community activities in Manningham.

Usually the program is oversubscribed and the council receives applications for around twice the amount of money they budget for the program (Minutes 12 Dec 2017. page 145 2.3).

A Bit of a Feeding Frenzy.

It appears that community groups inform each other that money is available. Most applicants hear of the funding opportunity by emails sent between each other (page 146 3.3.4). It appears the council's program is well known among community groups and is a major source of much sought after funding.

The council is very vague about criticisms they receive from these groups about the way they manage this program. (Page 146 3.3.3.) The council wants to say they are getting better at managing this program but there is still quite a number of organisations who do not rate the council well in the way they are treated. They do not release a lot of information about organisations that rate the council poorly. It appears that there is a bit of a feeding frenzy going on and sometimes toes get stepped on and people are treated badly.

Regarding the fact that the council says they are rated well, we need to remember that these organisations are professional groups and you do not get money from a local council if you publicly criticize them and complain about how you are treated and rate the council badly. Something significant must have happened for some groups to be openly critical of how Manningham Council runs the program.

Why Training Programs?

These organisations also say they value the training programs the council offers. Apparently the council offers training courses to deliver activities more efficiently and effectively (page 147 3.3.7) In fact the council is expanding and developing it's training program for these organisations.

This struck me as a bit odd. I would have thought that community groups who apply for funding would already have track record of identifying target groups and strategies and activities to reach them.

But the council has a very narrow idea of what they want to fund. They will only fund programs that are carefully aligned with council objectives. So these training courses they offer, I presume, are to make sure there is no misunderstanding about what the council objectives are.

We are not interested in what you are currently doing.

What is odd its the council will not give money to a community organisation that has already commenced delivering activities (page 154 2.2). They only want to fund new activities that align with council objectives. And they don't want to fund activities already being delivered. They only want to fund entirely new projects that have not commenced.

This is odd because this means all those charitable groups who currently reach out to the poor, the homeless, the youth, and so on, are excluded from these council grants.

What is also interesting is the council is keen to expand this grants program to "more diverse and hard to reach groups". (page 147 3.6). In fact the council is translating the grant guidelines into the languages of these hard to reach groups and providing interpreter services.

The council is quite clear about their program. If you want money from the council, you have to work to achieve the council's goals and strategies (page 147 4.1). If you have your own mission to some group of people then there is no money for you. If the council thinks your proposal does not fit in with their goals and objectives then there is simply no money for you either.

Years ago I met someone who ran the "Road Construction Company". He said R.O.A.D. meant Raise Ourselves Advance Develop. One night a week he would open his workshop in Springfield road and teach teenage boys wood working and other skills. His objective was to get them off the streets and teach them something productive and provide them with a bit of guidance. I never found out whether or not he was part of a larger organization. But on reflection I think he must have been. The point is that people and organisations like him who have existing activities in place would be excluded from these council funds.

Manningham council is quite clear that grant applications are assessed according to their understanding and alignment of Council and Community priorities. (page 148 4.2).

A Different Type of Charity.

So just what are Manningham Council's priorities for these groups?

When you read the council guidelines you realize that these organisations must see the world as the council sees the world. Please let me explain. The groups of people to be targeted are:

individuals and groups who experience social disadvantage or isolation
older residents
people with disability
young people
culturally and linguistically diverse
women and children experiencing violence.

And your objectives must be:

respond to a demonstrated community need with a focus on vulnerable individuals and groups
provide for the inclusion and participation of all members of the community... responses that enable vulnerable individuals and groups to participate in local activities and opportunities.
Foster and inclusive and harmonious community ...
Enhance the health and well-being of the Manningham community
support a safer and more resilient community
encourage collaboration between council, groups, etc. ...
Enhance community outcomes through organisational change or development such as capacity building or research.

(see page 160 section 5).

From the above we can see that Manningham Council has a different view of charitable community work. Years ago, charitable organisations, like the man I met in Springfield road, wanted to reach one person at a time to help them to grow as individuals.

What the council seems to be doing now is hoping to reach whole communities of people, especially those hard to reach groups, to encourage them to join in and participate in the community.

A very strong theme running through the council's program is to make sure everyone in the community feels included and participates. They do not want to have groups of people that feel isolated and left out.

And the council wants to use every means possible to achieve this. Let's look at a their usage of arts to achieve their objectives.

Some of the objectives for the arts component of the program are:

Utilize arts as a means to enhance the inclusion and participation of all members of the community.
Celebrate local culture, it's diversity, history and identity and promote cross cultural practices.
Foster community spirit and a sense of belonging through cultural and social inclusion

See page 162 5.2.1.

Even in their small grants component of the program, there is this theme of inclusion and participation:

Facilitate community participation in a range of local activities and enhance access for individuals and groups that are identified as having high needs. See page 164 5.3.1.

I don't think many would object to the councils objectives. We don't want whole groups of people feeling excluded from the community. It is something that needs to be addressed.

The Elephant In the Room.

But I think there is a lot more going on that is not mentioned by the council. Please see this video here.

A few things to note from the video:

There are obviously ongoing issues with migrant gangs that the state government does not want to announce to the public at large.
Also the state government does not want to openly tackle these problems. The Police minister said this is a problem for the Federal Police. However it was pointed out that the Victorian Police have far more manpower and resources to tackle the issue of gangs. I think most would say it is something the state government should address. But they are extremely unwilling to do so.
We can see the gangs are extremely violent.
We can see the media also down play the involvement of migrants saying they were all born in Australia suggesting it is not behavior they brought in from overseas but something they learned here.
Note also how the Victorian police minister is concerned about the safety of police when confronting these gangs. Unfortunately for them, that is what we have police for. Would the police minister rather the community confront these gangs and dish out our own form of Justice? Off course not. The police are paid and it is their job to confront the more violent aspects of our community. If they are worried about danger, then unfortunately that goes with the territory.

We are left with the impression that the Victorian State Government does not want to address this problem.

The Hidden Government Agenda.

Why would that be, do you think?

Well those in the ALP, the media and so on, talk about things like racism, cultural issues, disadvantage, compassion and so on. But I think the real reason is that the ALP nearly always embarks on a campaign to gather new migrant groups into their voter base.

The ALP and their supporters will object. But the ALP has basically bought the vote of whole groups of people. For instance they bought the the Electrical Tradesmen by giving them a piece of legislation that was most likely written by the union which essentially protects their job from all forms of outside competition. This is the 'Electrical Safety Act'.

They did the same thing for the plumbers giving them a similar piece of legislation that basically protects their jobs from competition.

I myself am a descendant of a migrant group that came to these shores back in the 1940's. The ALP approached us at the time to become ALP supporters. What is important to note is one of the sections of this migrant group refused and since then have been portrayed in a very bad light in Australian Films and media. This shows the very close links the media and film industry in Australia have with the ALP.

The State ALP also bought the vote of the Islamic community with a piece of Legislation which was exactly what they wanted - The Victorian Racial and Religious Vilification Act. As far as I can tell this legislation has only been successfully used to date prosecuting people who said things against the Islamic community. It has not been used successfully by any other community group as far as I can tell. It appears to be recognized as the sole property of the Islamic community. That is, it is their law - contrary to what the then minister Rob Hull said.

I would say that the Victorian ALP also now wants to rope in the recent influx of African migrants into their voter base. If so, then they cannot go around arresting them and putting them in prison. They simply need to find another way. A softly softly approach that doesn't drive this group of people away from the ALP but also addresses the problem of their anti social behavior.

The Softly Softly Approach.

My hunch is that the Community Grants program may be part of the softly softly approach by the Victorian ALP government.

Note how they are keen to focus on 'hard to reach groups' in the community.

Note it's dominant themes to make people feel included in the community and not left out. And to participate constructively in the community.

I may be putting two and two together and coming up with five. The ALP and their supporters will say I am. But it is quite easy to see how it all could tie together.

And because the state government will not elaborate on their plans to address the problem of violent and predominantly migrant gangs, we are left to put the pieces together ourselves.

Their Approach is Doomed to Failure and We Will All Suffer For it.

If I am right then their plans are bound to fail. Why do I say this?

Just think about it for a minute. Every council will implement different programs run by different groups to reach different people. They will get equally varied results. Each council will manage the program differently, contribute different resources. And overall the results will be very patchy.

It would be much better if the whole thing were managed by the State Government. But my hunch is that they do not want to do that. That would be an open admission that a serious gang problem exists. They want to keep a good arms length from the problem, make it the problem of other people and if it all blows up, possibly even blame it on local issues. You see they have their excuses already figured out.

There is a real problem.

Please do a search on YouTube on the Gang problem in Melbourne and you will see that a serious problem exists.

You will see that many on the left side of politics simply want to deny this. They want to blame the whole thing on white racists, white supremecists and so on. In fact, in the midst of this gang problem, we find the left side of politics currently promoting the issue of white man's discovery of Australia (i.e. Captain Cook) and how that brought misery on the Aboriginal people and should now be condemned and all traces of this travesty removed. (I.e. Capt. Cooks statues are defaced and should be removed).

I am on the view that this is simply a diversionary tactic to take people's attention away from the current immigrant gang problem and focus it onto something else. It is a way of getting the gang problem out of the news and replace it with something else more palatable to the left.

And there are other problems.

I found this rather worrying video here.

Note how the tradesman in the video tried to report the criminal actions of this migrant to the police and he was turned away from two police stations and got a very unsatisfactory response from a third.

One thing that many on the left are saying is that they do not hear about any instances of migrant gang attacks.

What appears to be going on is the state government is putting pressure on the police not to investigate migrant gang crimes nor include them in the police data base. They have done this in the past to police by using threats regarding promotion and career opportunities.

The objective of the state government appears to be not to have any migrant gang crimes on the police records. In this way the state government can say there is no migrant gang problem because the police have no record of any.

Also notice how the media call the would be killer a terrorist. We know that the police monitor mobile phones, internet activity, and so on looking for any possible terrorist activity in Australia. And they jump into action when they come across any. But here we have a very clear attempt by a man to set fire to a petrol station, kill those inside and possibly kill others. And the police do not even want to take a statement from the tradesman who drove the potential killer off.

This is a very worrying development. Are the police there to protect us or are they there to play politics and look after their own interests? Are we being left to our own devices to protect ourselves from these would be killers?

I think we can be quite sure that if one of us were to take action to protect ourselves against these criminals then the police and the state government would do their best to put us through the wringer and try to have us charged with assault, manslaughter or murder depending on what transpired.

If the police are going to put themselves and their own interests first, while we are left exposed to these criminals, then, yes this is a very worrying situation.

I think that if the police are going to put their own interests first and above ours, then we also need to put our interests first. Remember, our first priority is always, to protect our family. We need to watch out for and protect each other, in every sense of the word, if the police are going to put their own interests first and not watch out for and protect us.

Manningham Council breaks their own laws.

Blogger — Thu, 04 Jan 2018 01:56:56 GMT

Some years back Manningham Council placed a heritage overlay on the old Council Offices (HO48). The problem is that the Council HAS SINCE RENOVATED AND ADDED TO THE COUNCIL OFFICES SEVERAL TIMES apparently without even checking whether or not there was a heritage overlay on it. (Please see Council minutes 28 November 2017, page 112 point A and page 116 point 3.21).

Manningham Council has a history of being somewhat sloppy in the way they manage their overlays. They call their mistakes 'anomalies' but I think most would say that behind them is just plain carelessness.

Please consider these 'anomalies' they mention in the 28 November 2017 minutes:

"Several of these errors and anomalies have arisen from relatively recent amendments to the planning scheme where land has inadvertently been included in an incorrect zone." (see page 113 point 2.3 and page 115 point 3.14).

And consider this:

"Other corrections relate to land in private ownership which appears to have been inadvertently incorporated within a public land zone when the new format Manningham Planning Scheme was approved in June 2000." (see page 113 point 2.3).

I would say the owners of that private land would be impressed.

Another 'anomaly' is where the council has planned for a public road to run through a cemetery. Also, in this same cemetery, the council has a DD03 (Design and Development Overlay). (Please see page 115 point 3.19 of the 28 November minutes).

Either the cemetery came first and the council added the road and the development overlay later. Or the road and overlay came first and the council added the cemetery later. Either way you look at it, it was a very sloppy and careless piece of planning work.

Regardless of the sequence of events, you can imagine the Planning and Environment staff after they put the overlays in place sitting back in the council offices saying, 'Yes, that looks about right'.

The Crime at hand.

But lets get back to the issue at hand. Let's consider how the council apparently doesn't check or even bother with the heritage overlays they place on their own buildings.

So what was the heritage overlay on the old council offices? Let me give you the Council's exact words:

"The building was identified as being of State significance in the Heritage Study (Context P/L, Peterson R, Stafford B 1991). The Statement of Significance identified the building as being. ‘Of State significance as the most complex and arguably the finest expression of a Miesian pavilion in the state.’ Two significant trees on the site were also identified as being of significance in the Manningham Heritage Garden and Significant Tree Study (John Patrick Pty Ltd 2006), although these have since been removed as part of the development of MC² in approximately 2010." (page 116, point 3.22)

What is important to note is what the council said when they put this heritage overlay in place. They said that the council offices was 'the most complex and arguably the finest expression of Miesian pavilion in the state'. We can see that they were very confident of it's heritage value when they put the overlay in place.

Also note the value placed on two trees that their own study identified as being of significance.

The problem was that the heritage overlay over the council offices and the overlay on the two trees got in the way of council plans. (The two trees were in the way of the new MC² building Manningham wanted to build.)

I wrote an article back in 2013 titled "Heritage Overlays" in which I argued that the council overlays are often a problem to owners and often get in the way of what people what to do with their own land.

It is interesting that Manningham Council had the same experience.

So what did Manningham Council do?

When they wanted to renovate the council offices it appears they didn't even bother to check if their was a heritage overlay on it.

When they wanted to build the MC² building they also did not even check regarding the two trees. Instead they simply got rid of them.

At some point they discovered both were protected by heritage overlays.

You could imagine what would happen if you or I were to ignore heritage overlays and just went ahead and did what we liked with a heritage home. The council would be on us in an instance. They would have us in court. Not only would we be fined but the council would insist that we put the property back to the exact state it was in before our changes.

In fact, Manningham Council did exactly this with some unfortunate people at Warrandyte who had the audacity to plant fruit trees, bring in some soil and dig a trench in their newly acquired property that was protected by a council overlay. The council made them put it back exactly as it was, even to the point of insisting the earth was returned in the exact same layers it had when it was removed.( Please see VCAT case 2044 of 27 October 2011)

And please see my article 'Heritage Overlays' on this website (dated 12/10/2013) to see how intrusive, unreasonable, pedantic and unnecessary the heritage overlays are on private houses in Manningham. And the council fanatically enforces their heritage overlays. They control the color of paint you can use, the type of material, fasteners and so on. And if you do not comply, there are harsh punitive measures waiting for you. They have little regard for how their overlays hold people back from using and developing their properties as they wish.

The council would no doubt respond by saying that people knew there was a heritage overlay on the property when they bought it. They knew that there were restrictions with what they could do with their property. But there was a heritage overlay on the council offices and on two trees. When these got in the way of the Council's plans it appears they didn't even bother checking but just went ahead and did what they wanted.

How could Manningham Council sweep this under the carpet?

But there is no need to worry. Manningham Council makes the laws. They can do what they like. Surely you don't think they have to obey their own laws.

But they still had to get rid of the stink.

So Manningham Council employed Heritage consultant, Lovell Chen, to investigate the original citation within the Manningham Heritage Study of 1991. This documant includes Manningham Council's own confident statement which claimed the council offices were: "the most complex and arguably the finest expression of Miesian pavilion in the state."

Lovell Chen started by saying:

"the council study provided little to substantiate the assertion of it's significance."

Let's stop here for a bit. MOST of the Heritage overlays established by Manningham council provide little to substantiate historical significance. Please see my article "Heritage Overlay" on this website dated 12/10/2013.

The council has put heritage overlays on old treated pine fences with rusting bolts sticking out of them! Yes treated pine! Also one old barbed wire farm fence has a heritage overlay. It is mostly buried by grass and almost completely fallen over. In my view both these fences are simply a danger to the public. They also put a heritage overlay on a white wooden fence similar to ones built in the hundreds decades ago around football ovals in state high schools. They even put overlays on the INSIDE of homes (not on the outside). And just who do you think will enjoy this piece of 'heritage'. They have even put overlays on display homes that were meant to be examples of the type of homes to be built on new developments.

In my view, Manningham Councils heritage overlays border on being unhinged. They typically provide very little to substantiate the significance they claim. Their historical significance appears to be only in the mind of the council.

But that will not stop the council. They enforce their heritage overlays with fanatical belief in their historically significance and they apply penalties for anyone who dares to alter one without their approval.

But it is interesting to note that when the council falls foul of their own laws, they quickly accept the notion that there was ever any real significance behind the heritage overlay on the building they altered.

Lovell Chan then goes on to say...

"Notably, it included little comparative analysis and made no attempt to place the work within the Blocks’ oeuvre (dictionary definition: the body of work of a painter, composer, or author. ) or to place their work within the local architectural context.

Which also is complete rubbish. The council started out by saying, "the most complex and arguably the finest expression of Miesian pavilion in the state." Now they want to include the idea that a building also needs to be part of a body of work in the surrounding area.

They appear to want to say now that their wonderful Miesian pavilion must also be seen in the context of other local architecture. Isn't that odd! Not one of the heritage overlays I have read about in the council documents has mentioned, as far as I can recall, any need to be 'placed in the local architectural context'. From what I can tell, all the heritage overlays I have read of stand on their own merits and are examples of one thing or another independent of what was around them. The old Tullamore golf house is a good example. All of the context of the old Tullamore homestead has been replaced by high density homes. It's only context now is one or two original trees and a narrow border around the building. Essentially, the building now stands on it's own merit with little if any architectural context. The same can be said for the fallen down farm fence, the treated pine fence and so on.

But the council is desperate for anything that will get them off the hook.

Lovell Chan then goes on to say:

The citation also made no distinction between original and later fabric in its physical assessment of the building and contained a small number of errors and omissions in relation to the history and development of the building.

This is also complete rubbish. Even the council allows owners of heritage properties to extend their buildings with new additions and changes provided the changes look as though the were of the same period and style as the original building. And as a result, many heritage sites in Manningham would naturally 'contain errors and omissions in relation to the history and development of the building'.

But in the end Manningham Council had no choice but to adopt all of Lovell Chen's arguments and all it's nonsense, contradictions and rubbish. They have already removed the trees and changed the building that was supposed to be protected. So what else could they do?

They conclude, quoting Lovell Chan's arguments, their only option is to remove the heritage overlay from the council buildings.

Job done. Their crime is swept under the rug. The stink is taken away.

You see, Manningham council can get away with breaking their own laws.

Just think for a moment. Would Manningham Council accept an argument from an Heritage Consultant we were to employ to justify our actions after we had already made the changes we wanted to a heritage property without consulting with the council at all! I doubt it very much. I think they would pursue you in court with a vengeance if you did what they did.

Can We Trust the Reports from Consultants employed by Manningham Council?

Surely we can trust what they say. These people are assumed to be independent and are assumed to give an independent opinion outside of the thinking and agenda of the council.

It sounds reasonable. But we need to look very closely at Manningham Council's history with 'independent consultants'. Please see the next article on this website "How Independent are Independent Consultants."

How Independent are Independent Consultants.

Blogger — Thu, 04 Jan 2018 01:55:51 GMT

Can We Trust Independent Consultants employed by Manningham Council to be independent?

Surely we can trust what they say. These people are assumed to be independent and are assumed to give an independent opinion outside of the thinking and agenda of the council.

It sounds reasonable. But we need to look very closely at Manningham Council's history with independent consultants.

May I give you a quick summary.

A) The Eastern Golf Course.

Do you remember the Eastern Golf Course? Originally the council had an overlay over the entire golf course. This must have been a burden to the golf club. Any change they wanted to make to just about anything, had to have council approval.

Then the golf course was to be sold. Suddenly a large, prime piece of land was becoming available that was close to an activity center, close to transport, and had the ability to solve one of Manningham's pressing problems - which is to handle the population growth planned by the state government.

So what did the council do? They hired an 'independent consultant' who told them that the only things that really had heritage value was the old 'Tullamore' house, a narrow boundary around it and a few trees.

Really? This independent consultant told the council exactly what they wanted to hear.

Armed with this consultant's information they removed the overlay over the entire property and only protected the old house and the trees. This report also allowed Manningham council to run bulldozers through sections of the 'native heathy forest' that they once so fanatically protected.

I find it odd, that when the golf course was owned privately, the golf club couldn't touch one of the native 'heathy' forest trees without council approval. But now the council need the land, they ran a road through part of this forest.

B) The Flood Overlay.

This episode really made me suspicious of the council's independent consultants.

The council had a problem. They were going to add flooding overlays to thousands of homes that previously did not have one. The fear among residents was that this would decrease the saleability and price of thousands of homes in Manningham.

Manningham Council wanted to argue that their flood overlays would not effect the price of homes. But what could they do? They needed something.

Now I think it stands to reason that people generally would not favor a home that would occasionally be flooded by water. Those among us who have bought homes realize that details of flooding, and similar information is provided, in Victoria, on a 'Vendor Statement' or as it is more commonly know the Section 32 form. This form was introduced by the state government many years ago because it was believed that buyers needed this information to make informed decisions. The Section 32 contains all sorts of important information. In particular it contains a lot of data from the local council. It is very wise for prospective buyers to read that form carefully because, generally, no one wants to buy into a serious problem.

I remember about a year back I checked the Section 32 for a shop I wanted to buy near the city. It indicated that a natural watercourse ran under the property. This watercourse needed to be kept free of contamination. The owners of the property had to pay for a rather expensive examination done by recognized experts every year to satisfy the council that these waters were not being contaminating. It also effected any renovation or development of the property. I decided that was not worth the trouble.

Also another shop I was looking to buy was in one of these properties that had shops facing the street and residential units above and behind the shops. In my view, this is a stupid form of development that should never have been allowed. The Section 32 indicated that some of the shop owners were in dispute with the residential owners and it appeared to be getting serious. This often happens in these types of developments because the priorities of shop owners with their noisy equipment are often in conflict with the priorities of residential homes.

The section 32 contains a lot of information that is important to potential buyers. That is the very reason why the State government requires this document for every property sale.

So would a flood overlay effect the saleability of a home? In my view it would. I don't think people generally would choose a property with a serious problem if they could avoid it.

But the council wanted to say otherwise. And this is where it gets bizarre.

They employed an independent consultant who put forward a rather odd argument which went like this:

"If a property was going to flood anyway, adding a flood overlay would not effect it's sale price."

Please consider this from the consultants report to Manningham Council:

"In contemplating any potential value impact associated with the disclosure of flood risk via mapping or the introduction of regulatory control, it is important to recognise that the level of flood risk does not in fact change but simply recognises an existing condition of the land." (Attachment 10, page 11, minutes 26 Sept 2017).

In the next section of the report the consultants argue that planning bodies (i.e. councils) have found no evidence indicating property values decrease because a building overlay is placed on it. That is - a building overlay that a council applied.

Further in the report, the consultants cannot find one piece of evidence that a flood overlay reduces the price of a property. Everything to the contrary is dismissed for one reason or another.

What this consultant is essentially saying is that potential buyers have always been aware of likelihood of flooding on a property and have taken this into consideration when making an offer on a property that does not have a flood overlay.

Is that true? They could make a guess about a property's potential to flood. But how would they know this without a careful inspection of the property? And would they be aware of this at an auction?

The important fact that this consultant has omitted is that not one state or local government body has any information relating to the past flooding of such a property. This is not known by the council, nor Yarra Valley Water, nor the State government. Past flood events involving the property would not be on any document these bodies possessed. Importantly there would be no flood overlay or flooding information mentioned on the Section 32.

But according to these consultants somehow people just knew that a property was effected by flooding in the past and took this into account when making an offer to buy. And so, when the council added their flood overlay later, prices are not effected!

As you can see. This is a very strange piece of logic.

To see how odd it is, please consider this. Imagine that you believed a property would flood even though there was no flood overlay on it. So you approached the council to ask why there was no flood overlay on it.

They would think you a bit weird. The council would say they have no knowledge that the property would flood. They might humor you for a while and say that if it rained hard enough for long enough most properties might flood. But at the end they would get sick of you and tell you to go away.

Possibly, after giving it a bit more thought, the council might even think that you wanted to buy the property at a reduced price and were trying to rope the council on to your side to support your cause.

Either way, you would be regarded as either a bit of a nut or a bit of a crook.

You can see that the argument put forward by the independent consultant is seriously flawed, is bizarre, and makes little sense.

But it was what exactly the council needed. They ran with it, even quoting this nonsense in their minutes saying there was no reason to believe that the application of a flood overlay would effect the saleability of the land or the sale price!

C) The Council Offices.

As mentioned in this article "Manningham Council Breaks their Own Laws", Manningham council assessed their old council offices as: "the most complex and arguably the finest expression of Miesian pavilion in the state." Then they went ahead and renovated and added to it apparently without even recalling that they themselves had placed a heritage overlay on it.

But the crime had been committed. Something had to be done.

So they hired yet another consultant who gave very flawed and misleading arguments to get them off the hook. The conclusion of the consultant was exactly what the council want to hear.

Armed with this ammunition they deleted the heritage overlay from the council offices and presto! It never really had any historical significance. So they never broke any law!

You or I would never get away with what the council did. If you or I were to change a building with a heritage overlay without consulting with the council. And then hire a heritage consultant, after the event, to justify what we had done, I think Manningham Council would pursue us with a vengeance.

So just how 'independent' are these consultants?

Government Work is highly prized.

Business people know that government work pays well, and government generally pays promptly. And if you can get regular work with a government body, it is a good source of income. Usually government jobs are prized because prices and charges can be set at higher levels and the government usually pays without objecting.

Now what do you think would happen if these consultants Maningham Council hired suddenly started to say things the council did not want to hear?

How many more jobs do you think they would get? I think they would be throwing away much, if not all, future work. In fact, I have never read in the council minutes of any consultants employed by the council reporting back something the council did not want to hear.

After looking at the history of how Manningham council uses these independent consultants, I have come to the conclusion that these consultants are not independent at all.

It appears to me that these consultants are briefed by the council regarding what the council wants to see in their report and then they go away and diligently provide the council with exactly what they want.

I am sure these consultants will say that they carry out their work with integrity.

But if you look at the council's history with consultants as recorded in the council minutes, I cannot recall reading of one instance in any of the minutes where an independent consultant employed by the council tells the council something they did not want to hear.

In every instance I can recall, the consultants tell the council exactly what they want to hear.

In my view, this practice of employing consultants is simply a smokescreen. It gives the impressing the council is being balanced and fair, while in actual fact, they are rigging the outcome so they can do precisely what they want. This pantomime is done to mislead us and, to add insult to injury, they use our money to pay for it.

We can see that the council uses an independent consultant when they want to excuse themselves from following their own laws. They did that with the Eastern Golf Link development and they did it with the council offices renovation fiasco.

The council uses these consultants to slide past their own laws and regulations that get in their way, which if you or I were to break we would be in a mountain of trouble.

Do you think I am mistaken about this?

Please see attachment 10 for minutes of 26 Sept 2017, page 101. Click the 'download' icon to see the attachment. Then go to page 4 of the attachment.

Note that a council employee, someone from strategic planning, was working with the independent consultants. Note also that she was not given the role of 'advisor' or 'assisting in' or 'supervisor' or 'consultant' or anything like that. No, her title was the 'Instructing Party'. That is an odd and curious job title. So her job was to 'instruct' the independent consultants.

I wonder what she needed to instruct them in?

It's not as though Manningham council wants to hide what they are doing from you. They appear to truthfully say precisely what they are doing.

They appear to be quite confident that you will never figure out what they are really doing.

The Stink over Sewerage

Blogger — Wed, 15 Nov 2017 13:10:32 GMT

As most will know, the State Government wants to build a sewerage treatment plant in the city of Manningham.

However there is something very odd about all this.

Please allow me explain.

First let's list a few facts that many may already know.

Fact 1.

The water we discharge from the sewerage treatment plant in Werribee is clean enough to drink.

How do I know this? The Werribee Sewerage Treatment plant actually runs (or used to run) tours! It was plumbers and other tradespeople who usually attended these tours.

One of my friends is a plumber who attended this tour some years back. Apparently they were taken on a tour of the plant. However it was at the very end of the tour that was the most telling.

At the point where the treated sewerage was about to be discharged back into the bay, the tour guide stopped, took a glass and dipped it into the treated effluent. Then he drank it! This is what my friend told me.

The point to note here is that at Werribee we treat the sewerage of around half of Melbourne to a point where it can be safely consumed. While most people would be horrified at the thought of drinking it, they would most likely agree that it is at perfectly suitable for gardens, flushing toilets, etc.

Fact 2.

We currently have in place a sewerage system where all the waste of Melbourne is piped and pumped to two places: the eastern and western treatment plants. Just as the treatment plant at Werribee can discharge water clean enough to drink, I am told that the eastern treatment plant can do the same.

What is important to note is that all this infrastructure is currently in place, paid for and operating. There may be a need to upgrade and/or maintain pumps, pipes, etc. but still we have an extensive collection system in place that takes all our waste to these two points for treatment.

Fact 3.

You would think that the most cost effective way to process Melbourne's sewerage would be at large treatment plants. This is because you would get the best economies of scale.

If you were to break up the treatment of sewerage into smaller plants, the costs would increase because you would need to duplicate functions. For instance, you would need to have maintenance departments at each site, an administrative office at each site, canteen services at each site and so on. Also you would need to run an industrial electricity supply line to each site.

All this adds to the start up and running costs and makes the total operation less cost effective.

What is missing?

If the state government wants us to use recycled water, then what do we still need to build to get the recycled water back to residential houses in the suburbs so it can be used?

From what I can see there are two things:

a) We need a network of large pipes to take the recycled water from the sewerage treatment plants back into the suburbs.

b) We need an extensive pipe network that takes the recycled water from the large return pipes pipes and distributes it to each of the residential houses where it will be used. In short, we need to build a second water distribution pipe network to each house. I assume that they will not be mixing the recycled water with our fresh water.

I think you will see that we need b) regardless of whether the sewerage is treated locally or whether it is piped from either of the two existing treatment plants. In either case we need a network of pipes to take the recycled water to individual homes.

As a result I would like to put b) aside for the moment.

Then the issue becomes this.

Is it better to pipe the recycled water from the two treatment plants or is it better to build smaller treatment plants nearer to where the recycled water will be used?

Which is cheaper? I certainly have not seen any costs for these options. It appears to me that we have been given a done deal. It appears that a sewerage treatment plant is going to be built in Manningham and all that is left to decide is where it is going to be built. We have not been given any alternatives nor their costs, for example, like we were given for the Doncaster Rail proposal.

You might think that the cost of putting in large pipes from the two treatment plants back out to the many suburbs would be prohibitively expensive. For example, there would be a lot of disruption as tunneling and digging is done, etc.

However we have a freeway network throughout the southeastern, eastern and western suburbs. If the freeway corridors could be used for part of the return water system from the two treatment plants, then the cost and the disruption would be reduced. Since the state government runs and manages both the water system and the freeway system, it should come down to practical considerations and costs.

Why have we been given a done deal?

Why have we just been told that we are going to get a sewerage treatment plant? Why is this the only option? When the Doncaster Rail project was put to the public, we were interviewed, asked for our opinions, our expectations and so on. And what we said and thought was taken into account in the government report. And in that report we were given options, their pros and cons of each and their costs.

From what I can find out, none of this has been done. The state government has decided what is best and there you are. No discussion. It appears that the only discussion taking place is where the plant is to be built.

Now, if Victorian and Federal ALP governments had a history of carrying out projects successfully, then maybe we could trust their judgement. But unfortunately that is far from the case.

ALP governments at both the state and federal level have a history of poorly managed projects with cost overruns and delays. Just to refresh your memory, let me run through a few of the better known ones.

a) The Desalination Plant.

Do you remember that? A desalination plant was forced on us because the Greens wanted it. And do you remember how stupid the state government was? They were paying for the plant before it was even completed and commissioned. Do you remember when the Liberals took power they were horrified that the State Government was paying for something that had not been completed and were passing the cost back to us the consumers.

The Liberals, being the business minded people they are, stopped this nonsense, reduced our water bills and only started paying for the Desalination plant once it had been completed and commissioned.

Even now, from what I can tell this desalination plant is sitting there as a government white elephant - hardly, if ever used, unused and not really needed.

b) The Roof Insulation Program.

Do you remember that? This was done by a Federal ALP government.

Houses in Melbourne started to catch on fire. It was that bad and that poorly run.

My mother in law lives in a group of units. The roof insulation people came around and started to install the roof insulation WITHOUT ASKING THE OWNERS FOR PERMISSION. I am not kidding you. The body corporate representative told them to get out.

However my mother in law agreed to have the insulation installed. When she heard about the houses catching on file she asked me to go and look at what they had done. When I climbed into the roof cavity, the first thing I saw was that the roof already had quality roof insulation installed. It did not need any more roof insulation. But that did not deter these people. What they had done was spread half the new insulation around on top of the existing insulation and where the roof cavity started to get narrow they just left the insulation bats in piles without actually installing them.

If you remember, you used to see these small pick up trucks simply overflowing with yellow roof insulation around the suburbs. They were cowboys in the worst sense of the word. We found out later from the media that some gangsters from Russia were involved in it - probably because there was easy money was to be had and little if no supervision or follow up.

Again, all this was again done for political reasons. A fiasco of quite literally criminal proportions, carried out on the people of Australia and paid for by the people of Australia. It was done to keep the green lobby happy.

c) The Light Bulb Program.

Do you remember this? Again a federal ALP government was going to save the planet by giving us fluorescent light globes to replace our incandescent ones. Again, this was done to keep the Green lobby placated.

Before any of the light bulb programs started, I had already replaced all the incandescent globes in my house and my units with the smallest wattage globes to reduce electricity costs. My father in law lived in one unit and had a habit of buying very high wattage light globes. I had a box full of 100 watt and even a few 150 watt globes which he bought.

When we heard about the first light bulb replacement program, I quickly swapped out my 25 watt globes and replaced them with the high wattage globes I got from my father in law. The people came, took all my high power globes and replaced them with new fluorescent globes.

A few years later the ALP had ANOTHER light globe exchange. So I again swapped out all the fluorescent and low wattage light globes and replaced them with high wattage globes I had left. They came and took the high wattage globes and replaced them a SECOND time with fluorescent globes.

By this time I was getting quite a collection of fluorescent globes courtesy of the ALP Federal government.

When the Liberals came to power in Canberra, they also had a light bulb exchange program.

All the down-lights in my house still ran incandescent globes. Up until that time only fluorescent globes were offered as part of the programs and neither of the first two programs offered to replace down-light globes. But the third and latest program offered LED down-light globes.

So I took down all my 10 Watt down-light globes and replaced them with all my old 50 watt and 35 watt globes. The government came and replaced them all with new LED globes.

But the Liberals were running this now.

A few weeks later I got a phone call from the people who installed the LED down-light globes asking why I needed them when I have already participated in two prior programs. I told them it was because they did not offer down light globes before and they seemed happy with that.

The point is that when the ALP ran the first two programs they collected all this data about who got the new globes but had no idea how to use it. It did not occur to them that they had set up a program that had no checks in place to ensure the work was done as they wanted it and that their objectives were being met.

When the business minded Liberals came to power they had the sense to use the data that had been collected to put checks in place to make sure they achieved what they wanted.

d) The NBN Broadband network.

We have been told that the NBN in Australia is actually slower than the Internet in Kenya. NBN supporters say this should be questioned but they have not furnished any evidence to date to the contrary.

And do you know that the NBN project in Australia is being used overseas as an example of HOW NOT TO INSTALL an National Broadband network? It appears we are the laughing stock of the world with this slow and problem prone NBN.

And to make matters worse. When 5G becomes available, mobile phones will have faster internet access than what NBN can provide! The NBN will is going to become obsolete in the next few years!

Why on earth did a Federal ALP government go ahead with such a flawed idea?

I have come to think that the NBN was not really done for the benefit of the Australian consumers. I recall that when the NBN was being put forward, there were concerns of a future economic slowdown. From what I can see, the NBN really served two main purposes:

It provided an army of tradespeople ongoing employment. We need to recall that tradespeople generally are a major supporter base for the ALP. The ALP version of the NBN had fiber to the home, which meant that an army of tradespeople would be digging trenches and installing fiber optic cable from distribution points on the street into everyone's back yard. It would have taken years to complete and cost a fortune. And the tradespeople would be the ones to benefit in terms of employment and money.
It also put the Internet into the hands of the government. To date, the Internet is provided by an army of small companies. What the NBN does is give the federal government is the 'kill switch' for the internet in Australia. If you recall, during the uprisings in Egypt a few years ago, the Egyptian government shut down the internet there. Now the federal government in Canberra can do the same thing - if they ever need to.

I now think that the NBN was never really done for the benefit of the Australian people. That was just the government narrative. It was really done for other reasons.

It looks like we are going to be left with a second rate Internet that is going to be seen as slow and out of date in a few years.

e) The MiKey System.

Do you remember that disaster? The Liberals tell us that we could have had a new hospital for the money the state ALP government wasted on the MiKey system.

From what I heard, one of the main reasons why the costs got out of control was because the minister of Public Transport at the time continually requested and approved a stream of changes to the system. Clearly this minister did not know how to run a project nor control or manage costs.

It took the business minded Liberals to get this system installed and working.

f) The Spencer Street Railway Station.

Do you remember this? John Brumby did not want to have this project finish behind schedule. So he simply declared it 'completed'. Even though there will still workmen there finishing the project.

I find it crazy that he would even take this approach. It seems that it never occurred to the ALP leader at the time that he should put people in charge who can deliver projects on time and within budget.

Instead he played God. He simply 'declared' it finished in the face of facts to the contrary.

It was so funny. It could only make sense to a desperate ALP.

So why do I mention all this?

It is very simple.

There is a very good chance that whatever the ALP does, will:

Be done mainly for political and not practical reasons.
It will not be thought through properly.
It will end up costing much more money than we are told.
It will not be managed well.
It could end up as a massive waste of money.

If ALP governments had a better track record, maybe we could trust their judgement. But as it stands, I think no, we can't and really we should not.

When it comes to this new sewerage treatment plant project, we should insist on seeing the available options, costs and benefits of each option. We need to see this in detail and not just accept the carefully worded narrative of the government and their agents.

This was done for the Doncaster Rail Project. The same thing should happen now. The public had a lot better understanding of the issues involved with that project than what we have with this one.

We can no longer just leave it to the ALP to get major projects done. Far too often, they carry these projects out for the wrong reasons and end up making a serious mess of them.